No doubt $94k is good money, especially in rurual areas. In the high cost of living metro areas -- which have a disproportionate share of lawyers -- it's merely decent money.

Yeah, and guess what? The median salary lawyer in a high cost of living area make a lot more money than the median salary lawyer living in a rural area.

Do you really think the median salary lawyer in DC or NYC only makes $94k?

Lawyers are, by and large, very wealthy, no matter where they are found in the U.S.

Again, why are you (well, Alex) trying to claim that lawyers aren't rich?

Again, my real question is why do people try to minimize the seemingly obvious achievements of the wealthy?

No doubt $94k is good money, especially in rurual areas. In the high cost of living metro areas -- which have a disproportionate share of lawyers -- it's merely decent money.

Still, it's true that lawyers are more likely to be able to afford BMWs than those in most occupations.

You realize that this means that half of all lawyers made less than $94,930, right?

Um, yes. And the average pay is substantially higher.

Most lawyers (at least 50%+1) earn more than twice the median income of your average American.

Sounds like a pretty wealthy profession to me.

I guess if your baseline is professional athletes and corporate executives, than lawyers aren't rich. But to most of America, they are.

"In May 2004, the median annual earnings of all lawyers were $94,930." From the BLS.

You realize that this means that half of all lawyers made less than $94,930, right?

I hate to break this to you, but most lawyers aren't rich.

"In May 2004, the median annual earnings of all lawyers were $94,930." From the BLS.

They're obviously wealthy enough to be mad about a BMW surtax.

It's weird how some people try to pretend that the wealthy are not wealthy.

I'm trying to think what would get lawyers marching in the streets in America. Luxury taxes on expensive cars, perhaps.

I hate to break this to you, but most lawyers aren't rich.

Triumph is probably being facetious, but one has to think that similar reasoning about Afghanistan led us to ignore that country once the Soviets left.

No, I aint. Generally the Middle East stops at Persia's boundaries.

I don't see any way we can reasonably expect something like that to behave like a state. And whatever it is it's nuclear-armed. Very difficult.

If you examine the comments made by the presidential candidates of both parties WRT Pakistan, it's rather apparent that however feckless our current policy is, it's the American policy not just the policy of the Bush Administration. There really isn't a great deal of political hay to be made out of our Pakistan policy.

Triumph is probably being facetious, but one has to think that similar reasoning about Afghanistan led us to ignore that country once the Soviets left.

I know that....though I sometimes wonder if the Bush Administration knows the difference.

But the point is the same, don't you think whether we're talking about the M.E. as a hole or this one little corner of Southwest Asia.

At some point, referring to our Middle East policy as a "quest for democracy" is going to start sounding ridiculous.

Dude, the post is about Pakistan--not the Middle East.