1. Clergy

No.

Indeed. Like lawyers, PR types & politicians in general, they pretty much lie for a living, seems like.

How dare you guys blaspheme against the clergy of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. May you spend an eternity in ravioli.

How dare you guys blaspheme against the clergy of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. May you spend an eternity in ravioli.

Sounds good to me!

Is whoring an honest profession?

Well, Lenny is a finance goon, so I think Foster wins the "comparatively honest profession" portion of the game.

1. @52 was very funny.
2. Here's actual survey data on the topic (not their actual honesty/ethicism, but how people think those in those jobs are). [first: nurses, last: lobbyists]

57% of people think police officers have "high" or "very high" ethical standards? Havent these people watched The Wire?

7% of people though members of congress have "high" or "very high" ethical standards. In other news, 7% of the respondents were actual members of congress.

The funniest part is that somebody accepted a check from Lenny Dykstra.

Maybe she thought she was Jennifer Garner.

I was wondering how she got access to an old checking account that had been closed for years.

When I first saw it I thought it said "#### that whitie," which made little sense given the rest of the rant.

No, that's what he said shortly after the transaction he denies took place.

Lenny really knows how to endear himself to people, doesn't he.

Dykstra seems to be as dumb as Canseco but meaner.

I don't (and have never) really paid attention to him, but I'm not sure that Canseco is actually dumb. My vague impression from interviews and such back when he was a player was that he seemed like a somewhat intelligent person.

But some of the recent stuff that's come out of him made me think that perhaps he's got some sort of untreated mental illness. Crazy, not dumb. I don't remember specifically what things made me think this, but there was some spate of tweets (or something like that) that included things like "my landlady locked me out of my apartment above her garage because I can't pay the rent and now I can't get my chandelier from inside my apartment I have to get my chandelier I don't know what I'll do".

Again, I don't pay attention to him, and never have, so both my original "somewhat intelligent" and my more recent "untreated crazy" opinions probably have little to no merit behind them, but that's the way it seems to me.

Quiet, comment #44, says, "Next week on "Couch Time With Brock", Brock looks at Pete Rose."

And then notes that it was a joke, which is what I'd hoped. But, still: was an athletic star when young, and so had school age groupies to tell him yes. Check. Had way too much money after a decade of MLB pay. Check. Surrounded himself with sycophants, so he'd never get told no. Check. Having abandoned his entire reasonable-person support system, discovered he was addicted to gambling. Check. That's category 1 of my list.

As for foreign would-be dictators, who send assassins out to kill people who say nasty things about them - - I'm passing. Dangerous.

- Brock

1. Clergy
2. Librarians
3. Soldiers

You had a very hard time thinking up those three, I'll warrant.

1. Clergy
2. Librarians
3. Soldiers

Back in library school I knew a guy who was paying for his degree with money from his stint in the Navy, and he was a lying sack of ####.

57% of people think police officers have "high" or "very high" ethical standards?

Even more shocking is that 47% of people think that judges aren't contemptible human garbage.

3531.MLB Owners

5,950,164. Yankees fans.

You had a very hard time thinking up those three, I'll warrant.

Indeed I did.

Funny that the chart in #55, my wife is in the #1 profession, and I work in the very last profession.

I think we are all missing the obvious here - hookers take checks now? Times have changed indeed.

ag#1f, may i inquire as to what group you lobby on behalf of?

the only lobbyist i know is a heck of a nice/honest guy. sample size = 1.

Yes, but they are higher on the truth-o-meter than Wall Street types. I think it goes:
1. Clergy
2. Librarians
3. Soldiers
147.Whores
1282.Wall Street brokers
1491.Lawyers
2735.Politicians
3531.MLB Owners

Ahem
1 & 2. [I dunno]
3. Librarians
5. Soldiers
147.Whores
863. Clergy [Flying Spaghetti Monster adherents excluded]
1282.Lawyers
1491.Wall Street Brokers
1878. Mortgage Brokers
2735.Politicians
3531.MLB Owners
3667. Those Redsox Nation members who reside (and have always resided) outside of New England
9867. [Politically inclined] Talk Radio Hosts
Infinity: Francesspool

Infinity: Francesspool

I have to disagree with this, at least if you are basing your list on intentionally spouting falsehoods. Francessa doesn't say stupid (and almost always false) things to drive his ratings, he really is that dumb.

3667. Those Redsox Nation members who reside (and have always resided) outside of New England

Hey, wait, I'm behind Mortgage Brokers and MLB Owners (though, to be fair, I've never claimed to be a member of such a country)?

Day nurses are A-OK. Night nurses tend to be awful. In my recent experience.

I think whether you trust someone in their profession and whether you trust someone outside of their profession are two different things. In certain jobs you are being paid to advocate on behalf of someone else, so you may be advancing a position you don't actually hold. It's not necessarily dishonest, but at some point it likely means only presenting part of the truth. That doesn't mean people in these professions are dishonest in their personal lives.

so you may be advancing a position you don't actually hold. It's not necessarily dishonest

Yes it is. It's a textbook example of dishonesty.

My experience has indicated to me that I can't generalize about people according to their professions. For every profession that can be named, if I've met more than a couple of members of it, I've met ones that were fine, upstanding people and ones that were mean, lying sacks of ####.

It's a textbook example of dishonesty.

Disagree. Dishonesty is promulgation of an untruth. Advancing a position you do not hold is not an untruth, and in fact can show an advanced degree of honesty. Logically, it does not matter what you personally believe as long as when you advance the position you allow no untruths. I might liken it to sitting on a jury and finding someone not guilty even though you think he probably did it, but the state didn't prove its case to the satisfaction of our legal system's guidelines. JMO.

Agree that you can't generalize about a profession...except for car salesman and realtors. Yes, I've dealt with both kinds, but still, I think you can generalize about those and be right most of the time.

5,950,164. Yankees fans.

Can we agree to limit the rankings to actual human beings, and not sub-humans.

Consider this an opportunity for some good old fashioned Nazi ideology,

FPH

Yes it is. It's a textbook example of dishonesty.

No. If you're up-front with whoever you're dealing with about whose interests you represent and what your role is, you're simply doing your job.

If I'm an agent representing a professional athlete, I make the best case possible that I can for him. If he's injury prone, I'm not going to claim that he's durable--that would be dishonest. But I'm not going to highlight his injury history either in the negotiations, and teams should know that they are responsible for performing their own due diligence on my client.

This is not to say agents are never dishonest--I suspect they routinely are when on the job. But there's a way to be honest about it.

I think we are all missing the obvious here - hookers take checks now? Times have changed indeed.

Not really; for example, back in the 1970s, when Jerry Springer was still a politician and not yet a talk-show host, a police raid on a massage parlor unearthed a check that Springer had written a prostitute for her services.

DB

I think we are all missing the obvious here - hookers take checks now? Times have changed indeed.

People still use checks? Times haven't changed all that much, apparently.

From the survey linked in #55:

Judges: 47%

Lawyers: 17%

This is just my opinion, of course, but I don't think the respondents took the time to consider the logical disconnect in their ratings of those two professions.

Or maybe the respondents believe that the moment one of those rare honest lawyers is spotted, someone immediately throws a black robe on them and turns them into a judge.

DB

I dunno; are people who have sex for a living inherently less honest than those who do other things?

I think I've heard enough of your pathetic rationalizations about yourself, Gern.

You don't have to be a lawyer to be on the U.S. Supreme Court. Too bad Bill Moyers has probably aged himself out of an already vanishingly-small chance.

The pathway to becoming a judge is very different than the pathway to being an ordinary lawyer. They are quite distinct routes, even if there is overlap between them.

People who want to be judges will tend to clerk once they get their JD, rather than going into a firm. They may pursue a teaching job rather than a corporate one. They pass up on a lot of money, generally - although it's a pretty comfortable job once you get there.

I distrust lawyers less than the average person, but I have a lot more faith in judges, too. They are political agents, clearly, but that doesn't mean they can't make a genuine effort to uphold the institution, too.