General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)but he's retiring. We have a few doctors, but they are Republicans and I wouldn't trust them to diagnose a decapitation.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)They're witch doctors!
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)From edited videotape.
marew
(1,588 posts)I was at a meeting where I meet another volunteer who worked in that same location where this woman resided- Woodside Hospice. And I can truthfully tell you this volunteer had only the highest regard for her husband. For years, YEARS, this man had done everything he could to help his wife. He had flown her out of the country to specialists. He had spent years at her side desperately trying to help her. She could no longer be helped and and this other volunteer was completely aware of what had been attempted by her husband. It was demonstrated that any responses this poor woman had to anything were purely involuntary and were not signs of consciousness on any level.
Sometimes we have to love someone enough to let them go. I firmly believe that. How tragic this man was so demonized. How selfish was it by some to attempt to use artificial means to keep this woman "alive".
elzenmahn
(904 posts)...also brought you the Columbia/HCA for-profit chain of hospitals and clinics.
I'll say it until I'm blue in the face - get the profit motive out of health care.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)which is good enough for your average regressive these days.
The_Commonist
(2,518 posts)We want dentists to write laws, and lawmakers to pull teeth, dammit!
I understand the point, but I think it's kind of a stupid point.
Almost as stupid as "Why won't 'Cosmos' give equal time to Creationists?"
It's alright, he's allowed a minor fail once in a while.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)those on committees that evaluate Climate Change (to name JUST one example)?
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)You end up with an un-enforceable mess.
Drafting a working law means you MUST choose words carefully, understanding what unintended consequences can occur, and minimize them. It is not an easy task, and should never involve folks who have no clue how courts operate in the real world.
There is a clear and present need for lawyers in this world. But some folks here think that our profession is just a bunch of greedy liars, instead of doing our best for our clients first and foremost. That emotion simply reflects their ignorance or lack of experience.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)And for that you need the scientists.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)The best laws are written by lawyers who actively consult with top notch experts.
Trust me, I have had many bad experiences with poorly drafted statutes.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)I took it when I was in law school. It's called "Legislation".
So many of these lawyers in Congress write stuff that is prima facie void for vagueness (outlawing baggy pants, for example) or prima facie unconstitutional. Why they don't understand that, I don't know.
Whiskeytide
(4,461 posts)... wearing of baggy pants. They're writing a law to incite the morons back home to go to the polls and vote for them again. "I drafted an unenforceable, unconstitutional and vague law that has dubious undertones and is directed at a totally non-existent problem, and which will probably never actually pass, but if it does it will cost the country millions in court costs and regulatory fees to try and straighten it out!!! But YOU think you give a shit about it, so vote for me to do it again next term!!!!".
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)Erosion of legislative professionalism (which started with the Newt of Grinch).
But this be little more than a temporary spasm of insanity within the GOP. Either it returns to sanity. . . Soon . . . Or it will cease to exist as a functioning national party. Normally, rational legislators want the laws they draft to function. It is rare that a couple of dozen irrational "morans" manage to take control of the House and try to destroy the federal government. Drafting good, workable, effective law is hard work. But rewarding. And I do not mean lobbyist rewards.
Whiskeytide
(4,461 posts)... I hope you're right. I fear, however, that the tea party tactics have proven so disruptive - and in their minds, therefore, effective - that we may be looking at a more permanent de-evolution in professionalism rather than merely a spasm. Even if the republican party fractures and falls to ruin, something will rise from the crypt to replace it. And the effectiveness of anti-government tactics aimed only at disruption will not be forgotten.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)"The best laws are written by experts who actively consult with top notch lawyers."
You're way is like saying that the best books are written by editors.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)This is not entertainment or education. This is a law that society needs to follow. It requires lawyers to draft it.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)They is experts on de law and how to skate around it for your own advantage.
demwing
(16,916 posts)that work for our philosopher politicians
Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)There is more expertise required than knowing the law to write them, however.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)You also assume far too much of the actual crafting of legislation is done by the legislators and that what influence there is isn't significantly nonsense.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)in expertise.
okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Dianne Feinstein is an example of a legislator who is not a lawyer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein
Elizabeth Warren is an example of a legislator who is a lawyers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren
Bernie Sanders is not a lawyer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders
Louis Gohmert is a lawyer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louie_Gohmert
Rand Paul is a doctor with a medical degree from Duke University.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul
Richard Shelby is a lawyer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Shelby
Darrell Issa has a GED, but from what I can tell, has no college degree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrell_Issa
Barbara Boxer is, from what I can tell, not a lawyer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Boxer
Remember. Madison, Jefferson, Lincoln and FDR were all lawyers. As was JFK.
No one prevents scientists and engineers from running for Congress except themselves.
But people born with the ability to speak and argue are likely to become either preachers, teachers or lawyers. You can assume that one or another of their ancestors kissed a blarney stone somewhere, sometime in history. A lot of people choose to go into science and engineering because they prefer not to have to speak in front of crowds. A lot of people choose law because they like standing up and arguing.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)It's written by paralegals, or even lobbyists.
The Traveler
(5,632 posts)That is much like saying that since only computer programmers understand the intricacies of code, only programmers (and not the end users) of a system should specify requirements.
And that is absurd, of course. And not how it is done.
Tyson is not saying lawyers should NOT be members of Congress. Or business folk. The point Tyson is making is that other important disciplines are under represented in elected office. That effectively excludes different knowledge, priorities, and problem solving methodologies from the legislative body. Consequently, the legal and business viewpoints are over represented to the detriment of other concerns of the people.
And I think that is a fairly accurate description of the disease.
Congress critters have ample access to lawyers who help them write bills. (Alas, most of those lawyers work for corporations pushing a particular interest ... lobbyists.) So hammering out the technical legal language is not an unsurmountable problem.
Trav
hueymahl
(2,496 posts)We have a winner!
That is exactly the point he is making.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)
CherokeeDem
(3,709 posts)There are plenty of attorneys on congressional staffs who can craft the legal language needed to write a bill.
The_Commonist
(2,518 posts)I totally get his point.
I just think it's kind of a dumb point for a smart person to make.
It sounds to my ears an awful lot like the idiots who want "equal time" for creationism on Cosmos.
CherokeeDem
(3,709 posts)I think his statement is a keen observation. We have packaged our elected officials into cookie-cutter images... wealthy men, for the most part, who are likely attorneys. While I know you get his point... I don't see how his statement equates him to 'the idiots who want "equal time" for creationism on Cosmos.' No correlation, in my opinion.
The overlying fact is we need a broader spectrum of candidates running for office. However, until we break the cycle of our elected officials spending all their time running for re-election, it won't matter who we elect, nothing will be accomplished.
Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)...which you are entitled to, but read this, from a link down the page, and tell me whose opinion you would prefer.... and keep in mind that this is the opinion of a Representative who is a MEDICAL DOCTOR!
"God's word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell," said Broun, who is an MD. "It's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior."
He continued:
"You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don't believe that the earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says."
Broun is a high-ranking member of the House Science Committee, of which Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) is also a member.
Akin made headlines last month for suggesting that women don't get pregnant from "legitimate rape" because their bodies have "ways to try to shut that whole thing down."
I don't know about *you*, but I would prefer to have some REAL Scientists in high ranking spots of the House Science Committee instead of these two clueless nutbags. I wouldn't ask either of these idiots their opinion on how the weather is today! See how opinions differ??
Here's the link, in case you can't find it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/06/paul-broun-evolution-big-bang_n_1944808.html
Peace,
Ghost
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Their staff does.
This is a silly objection. It's like saying you can't tell the taxi driver where to take you if you're not also a driver yourself.
Elected members of a parliament are supposed to make policy that represents the interests of the country's people. Lawyers are not per se better qualified to do so than anyone else. The dominance of any one profession (and thus one class) within the group of representatives within the parliament is a very bad sign.
Clearly, a random selection of citizens would be more representative, less beholden to monied interests, and likely to produce better policy.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)
calimary
(81,267 posts)And a self-certified one at that!
Berlum
(7,044 posts)You leavin out a lot O' lovely life there Mr. Science Guy.
Perhaps you, like some of the narrow, dried-up souls on DU,
reckon they are all "Woo" weirdos, and thus expendable.
caraher
(6,278 posts)Other nations have had playwrights and poets lead them. I don't think his question means only engineers and scientists should play a bigger role, though obviously in that context his immediate concern is the lack of scientific and technical knowledge at the top. But you're right that we could use some "dreamers" (I mean this in a good way, not as a slam!) at the top as well.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)I read some of his essays, and .....WOW! I was so impressed by them.
LongTomH
(8,636 posts).....engineers. Dr. Tyson was just arguing for more diversity in our legislators; an opinion with which I heartily agree.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)Or presidents after the USSR collapsed. The resulting mess was not pretty. To the contrary, it caused problems we still face today.
demwing
(16,916 posts)and not by the collapse of the USSR, or some other set of events?
That "B" follows "A" does not necessarily mean that "A" caused "B"
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 30, 2014, 10:46 AM - Edit history (1)
Well, Duh, that was part of the problem. They were incapable of governing. They did not know how to deal with political opponents, they knew nothing about the art of compromise or negotiation. They assumed that in their poetry or music (see Lithuania) that truth was beauty and beauty was truth, and that everyone would play patty cake with them.
Or do you mean outside forces, like the remnants of Ye Olde KGB (pre-Putin) would make things difficult? Interfere with their efforts at governing? Same argument.
demwing
(16,916 posts)where the hell did that come from?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Basically he's reliant on correlation equating causation. Since that's an insipid argument, he has to undermine and belittle your position to make his own bad position look better in contrast.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)NDT is a product of the NYC public school system . . . .
We NEED more charters to overcome this gap!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Law is actually a kind of specialized language and a set of rules and customs developed over centuries. Lawyers go to law school to learn that language, those rules and customs. That is why our legislatures are full of people with law degrees. Because people with law degrees are trained to understand what the repercussions of the language in laws will be.
Scientists and engineers can go to law school. In fact, some of them do. And they become, for example, patent lawyers.
I must ask, where are the scientists and engineers when it comes to membership in the Bar Associations, the courts and the law. They are witnesses.
Similarly, when scientific or engineering issues arise in our legislatures, experts in science and engineering are invited to give their input. Some of them are hired as staff by legislators.
Scientists and engineers are as free to become legislators as anyone else, but they would probably be bored to tears over the discussions about whether to use "may," "should" or "must," or other linguistic details that go into writing laws. I realize that legislators hire people to do the actual drafting of laws, but lawyers are better trained to understand the legal meaning of the laws that are submitted to them by the staff.
Would you really want lawyers writing articles on scientific matters? Not often.
The Traveler
(5,632 posts)After 40 years (yep ... count 'em) our legislative body has been unable to mount any effective or innovative change in policy relevant to energy production or climate change or a whole range of other issues.
The legal mind is as specialized as the scientific mind. It is trained in different problem solving methods. It is trained to select priorities quite differently. 40 years down the line ... Congress still has no clue as to what is happening in the biosphere, and I'm not just talking about climate change. It's ineptitude is staggering, but not really surprising ... there is nothing in legal or business training that prepares the mind to think effectively in those problem domains. I've talked to several lawyers over the years about exponential functions and how that relates to population growth, resource consumption, pollution, etc. ... not a one of them ever absorbed it. And that frightens me.
So sure ... I get your point about the minutiae of legislation. And that's important. But the over specialization of elected representatives has resulted in complete incompetence at dealing with science and technology policy. You can get all the minutiae right but if you miss the big picture, it doesn't matter. And our legislators don't get the big picture. We are going to be paying a very heavy price for that failure from here on out, and indeed already have been.
Trav
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)We need to increase the number of science-literate voters. I have to admit I am not one of them. The problem is that the basic education in scientific principles was not a part of the curriculum for most of us. We did not have the background for the courses we did take.
For non-lawyers, legal niceties are a mystery.
For non-scientists, scientific basics are a big black hole.
I watch my son-in-law, an engineer, explain things about gravity to his three-year-old son that I at 70 do not know. That's a huge leap.
It won't do any good to have scientists run for Congress if their ideas about climate change, for example, cannot be understood by the electorate.
There is no way around better educating the public. And that is an almost insurmountable task because people like me don't have the basic building blocks in our vocabulary, education and experience to begin to grasp the complex concepts. I really try and am supported by two children who excelled in science and math. But the problem is not who is sitting in Congress. The problem is who is electing the people who sit in Congress.
I have not had a chance to see the Cosmos programs by Neil Degrasse Tyson, but I am looking forward to watching them. I am fairly aware of the information about climate change because one of my daughters works in that field.
But putting scientists in Congress is not the answer. In fact, considering how the very wealthy and corporations that have an interest in maintaining the status quo with regard to climate change legislation fund political campaigns, I have no doubt that if we did elect more "scientists" and engineers to Congress, they would probably be phonies paid to deny the human causes for climate change in Congress.
The problem is getting the American people up to speed on science. If that happens, you might see more scientists in all areas of American public life. Right now, to ordinary Americans, scientists seem to be sort of members of a strange cult or elite, like magicians or shamans in some cultures. This is improving but especially for older people what I am saying is a common experience.
NBachers
(17,110 posts)McNerney, who has his Ph.D. in mathematics, served several years as an engineering contractor to Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico. In 1990 McNerney moved with his family to California, accepting a senior engineering position with U.S. Windpower, Kenetech. McNerney later began working as an energy consultant for PG&E, FloWind, the Electric Power Research Institute, and other utility companies. Prior to his election to Congress, he formed a start-up company to manufacture wind turbines. During his career in wind energy, McNerney’s work contributed to saving the equivalent of approximately 30 million barrels of oil, or 8.3 million tons of carbon dioxide.
McNerney and Mary, his wife of 32 years, live in Stockton, California. Their oldest son, Michael, is a reserve officer in the U.S. Air Force and a graduate of American University with a degree in law. Daughter Windy received a Ph.D. from Notre Dame in neuroscience and is working as a Post Doctorate researcher in Neurotoxicology at Lawrence Livermore National Labs, and their youngest son, Greg, received his Ph.D. in biophysics and is working as an engineer at Intel Corporation.
He had a hell of a time getting elected and booting Richard Pombo out, but he keeps getting re-elected, now that he's there.
jmowreader
(50,557 posts)They want to do science and engineering, not battle people who think the earth is 6000 years old and shaped like a pizza.
They're generally introverts, and Congress demands extreme extroversion.
And the people who have the money to buy congressmen prefer lawyers and businessmen.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)To get elected to Congress, you have to say a lot of things that you either don't believe or know aren't true. You have to tell people what they want to hear, not what they need to hear. By training and disposition, most scientists have a natural aversion to that. Lawyers do not. Lawyers are very good at those things, in fact.
Johonny
(20,851 posts)There are a lot of people with Science and Engineering degrees interested in politics but lack the front door to running for office. The major scientists at Universities and in the business world are generally good at politics, are not introverts, and probably would be open to running for office in their late fifties or early sixties if parties were interesting in recruiting them to do so. Most of them simply don't see it as a career option so they don't think about it.
Republicans are heavily recruiting a certain tea party candidate and you can certainly see how recruiting in the late 90s has steered a certain type of person to run as a Republican so recruiting and cultivating an image works.
ProfessorGAC
(65,042 posts). . .the data from outfits like Myers-Briggs doesn't support that there is a preponderance of introversion in the sciences.
Personal experience is that an awful lot of engineers are quite the opposite. And since i've dealt with both academic and industry scientists and engineers for a really long time ('cuz i'm getting old) i'd say the extroverts easily outnumber the introverts.
That's just a sample of one experienced scientist and not meant to be representative of any greater population, but since the number of folks in those fields with whom i've interacted has to be approaching a thousand, it's not a tiny sample either.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,001 posts)Proverbial "late bloomers".
treestar
(82,383 posts)The first thing people have to learn in law school is that there is not going to be clear cut answers. A lot of people find that hard to tolerate. They want to know what the answer is, so they can put it on the test.
padruig
(133 posts)we used to have an astronaut and a physicist ...
but nevermore
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)Project Mercury astronaut John Glenn (D-OH) and Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison Schmitt (R-NM).
John Glenn's degree is in engineering; Harrison Schmitt is a geologist.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)a physicist.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Lawyers and business people are the majority, however do not encompass the entirety of our lawmakers.
113th - Congress
108 business people
12 farmers and ranchers
27 medical professionals
2 veterinarians
44 educators
10 non-profit and community workers
7 accountants
128 lawyers
55 government employees and career politicians
19 career military and law enforcement
8 entertainment and media
2 social workers
1 microbiologist
1 legal secretary
2 clergy
2 engineers
1 youth camp director
1 mill supervisor
1 physicist
1 carpenter
1 union rep
113th - Senate
1 social worker
1 engineer
2 entertainment an media
45 lawyers
22 businesspeople
3 farmers and ranchers
3 medical profesionals
7 educators
4 non-profit and community workers
3 military and law enforcement
9 government employees and career politicians
mopinko
(70,103 posts)point still pretty valid.
where are the artists? where are the moms? where are the teachers?
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)1 screenwriter, 1 comedian, and 1 documentary film maker, all in the Senate, and 1 professional football player, in the House.
102 educators, employed as teachers, professors, instructors, school fundraisers, counselors, administrators, or coaches (90 in the House, 12 in the Senate) - these could overlap with my earlier numbers.
There are plenty of moms, dads, grandparents, and I think a great-grandparent or two as well.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-10/the-113th-congress-by-the-numbers
mopinko
(70,103 posts)missed educator.
demwing
(16,916 posts)All Tyson is saying is that there needs to be more diversity, and that if you run a process over and over and keep getting the same unsatisfactory results, try changing your variables. To expect change without creating change is the classic pop definition of insanity.
exboyfil
(17,863 posts)I would like to take a look at it. 45% of the senators and 30% of the representatives are lawyers. 5% of the total workforce are scientists or engineers (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43061.pdf) so proportional representation would be 5 and 22 respectively. Lawyers are 0.36% of workforce (proportionally would be less than one senator and less than two representatives).
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-percent-of-the-us-population-do-lawyers-comprise.htm
Too many lawyers as far as I am concerned. One question would be the undergraduate degrees of the lawyers. Some would have technical degrees. Also most medical doctors will have a science degree or the near equivalent of one to satisfy med school admissions. The government officials and career politicians could also have technical degrees. Finally some of the educators will also have technical degrees.
It is shocking how little math or science some college majors require for graduation though. For example you can get through a highly regarded regional university with only the equivalent of advanced algebra, a light survey course in life sciences, and a light survey course in physical sciences (10 hours). You need 32 hours of English, Social Studies, and Fine Arts.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)There is a bit of overlap. I was not going to wiki the entire house. One physicist is also a businessman and IIRC he was also an educator.
edbermac
(15,939 posts)Can you imagine Stephen Hawking getting involved in a political debate with Michele Bachmann? He has got better things to do, exploring the mysteries of outer space as opposed to exploring the empty space between her ears.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)And while I joke a little, it is true that most STEM people wouldn't have the patience for politics.
madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)
elzenmahn
(904 posts)...all lawyers and businessMEN (a few women, but not representative of the country at large.) All likely running in the same rich guys and gals clubs.
I say, bring in the scientists and engineers. Bring in, for once, people educated in the world outside of the legal/business bubble.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'm not quite sure I get that argument. Lawyers probably are the people who should be writing laws, for the most part.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)which leads to some pretty silly statements. Noah Smith has just written about physicists that think they can waltz into economics and upend the entire field without spending much time to actually, you know, study it.
exboyfil
(17,863 posts)write their own bills? In fact laws should be written so that laymen understand them since we are responsible for knowing them.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)They're called lawmakers for a reason. It's what they (are supposed to) do for a living. They have to be trained in the law to do that. Even someone trained in business is more qualified for public office than a scientist. Government is the art of who gets what, and that "what" costs money.
miyazaki
(2,243 posts)DhhD
(4,695 posts)Hekate
(90,686 posts)pro vets; pro-science. Yes, she's a solid Dem.
Tyson is right -- we need "the rest of life" for some balance.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Understanding law is not a bad thing for people making laws.