Should the U.S. Have More Engineers in Congress?

GA. Yeah, I'm for that. ABL. Anybody But Lawyers.

No, I not that naive to think that you can craft good laws without lawyers, but I think that their pervasiveness in our legislatures is a detriment to the general public.

Absolutely agree. And when you think about it our founding fathers did a pretty damn good job in writing the Declaration of Independence and the original Constitution and most of them, though educated, were not lawyers. Many who were educated as lawyers actually practiced other means of livelihoods. There are 23 listed as lawyers of the 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence. Of those, 8 are listed as merchants and plantation owners as well. Three of the lawyers who signed were foundry men which is akin to being an engineer in the practice of metallurgy and foundry techniques. One of the lawyers was even listed as being a musician, probably a wind instrument.

More than likely one attended a college or university back then and took either Theology or Law. I'm sure the selection of majors back then was a lot more limited than it is today.

If they are in, vote them out, before they get corrupted or feel entitled to whatever they can get away with.

I think the full time / part time legislature aspect is interesting but is not very applicable. For one thing, there is too much influence some of the aspects you list that are greatly affected by the federal government (unemployment and home foreclosure come to mind).

The comment you are replying to was talking about the Founding Fathers' expectation of Congress being made up of business, farmers, etc. vs. professional politicians. Perhaps if Congress was so composed the recent state of the Union would be in better shape (meaning less debt). Over the years, individuals and states have come to rely more and more on the federal government to provide for them that they don't know how to be responsible for themselves (i.e. large budget gaps, home foreclosures)

I think that what the FFs hoped for was a truly good and noble idea, and a fitting form of good governance for a good and noble people. I think they did their best to keep the rabble-rousers and professional politicians safely away from their deliberations. If those standards could be applied today our current situation would be better. But as FF Jefferson suggested, it shouldn't take long for some people to figure out how to use the system to reward themselves and their friends. While our society still produces people of outstanding quality, the public seems to be at odds over who the quality candidates are. The quality of government we are getting now, with a glut of lawyers, will probably look pretty good twenty years from now when the seats will be filled with TV and radio talk-show personalities, pro wrestlers, and other entertainers.

You are right that 'individuals and states have come to rely more and more on the federal government to provide for them', but a lot has changed since the FFs day. We have grown from a small, poor and mostly rural economy based on raw materials and agriculture, to a huge, wealthy and mostly urban economy based on technologies that even FF Franklin couldn't have imagined. With industrialization and the westward expansion we have gone from self sufficient farmers who were born and died on the same plot of land, to a mobile people who work for wages, and move from place to place to find or keep a job. This mobility has been very good for economic growth, but it came with a hidden price - the old family based welfare system had been shredded. After ignoring the problem for a century or so, the state and federal governments began to deal with it. As I see it their results are pretty mixed, but I don't question the goal.

The US is unique for it has both a strong Federal government, and some strong states. I'm curious about what States have the most advanced educational systems that are publicly and privately financed? Gave you a GA partly in hopes you could pull up similar statistics as you provide concerning full and part time legislatures.

Myself, being mostly self educated I sure wish I was better educated, and am grateful for whatever help I got that helped me get some formal education. Even Community College was of great aid to me. Without the Equal Opportunity Educational Grant, I don't know how I would have gotten what little education I did.

I'm real sorry that I have some rough edges, but then again I'm valuable due to the fact that what I know has usually involved pain and sacrifice.

It is my theory that if what was given to the veterans of WWII in the form of the GI Bill regarding educational opportunities, had been won for all US citizens, the nation could not have ever been stopped from attracting all to its ways.

Course its ways were diminished as over time educational levels fell for the common people who were expected to simply be "trained" to become wage slaves to the dominate corporations.

Far as the state of NC that I live in, I am pleased that NC State has become a very competitive engineering institution of higher learning.

I have a lot of enemies at UNCH, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which has a well respected Law School...

excepting that all of them became professional politicians themselves, many living out their lives in some political position or another.

There is a huge difference between "should there be" and "could there be".

Engineering requires logical thought processes, honest conclusions, truth in all its forms. Politics requires spin, dishonest presentation of facts because the public votes for impossible promises in hope that they will be honored, engineers will offer only what they believe they can deliver. The trial lawyers are trained in obfuscation and deceit, they will always make bigger promises than the engineer.

I apologize for the generalizations, I realize that there are many exceptions.

Yes, many exceptions, in fact so many that they became the rule.

A lot of engineers I enterviewed as contractors, were dishonest, shameless and offered some bribe for the contracts. I always refused and let a lot of money go away, but at the end I worked with highly skilled, and very commited professionals who completed the task for less (a lot less).

But you know this is not true in all scenarios, and not certainly in the elites of power.

Yahlasit

Yahlasit, I'm sorry, I was thinking only of my own experiences in the UK and the USA, I should have remembered the stories of colleagues from other countries. Some engineers, I know, had to kick back part of their salaries to the managers who hired them. I hear that in some places, bribery is the norm, but I have no experience of it.

I don't see where a relationship between engineering and politics would be of any benefit to anyone. A conflict of interest could exist. Better to let engineers do what they do best and legislators do what they do best which is to make laws influenced by big business.

I suspect that, with all the compromises and commitments to donors and other practices required to get elected to Congress these days, I doubt seriously if one would be able to tell the difference between the lawyer and the engineer who have successfully attained office...

Watching the recent senate hearings in with a bunch of politicians (poplularity contest winners) attacked someone of a technical background (let's all remember Tony Hayward started off as a Geologist no matter how far he may have fallen) made me think that there were definately way too many lawyers in American politics. Think it's probably the same over here although we most likely have a mix of Union activists too. And that may not be a good thing.

And yes, in the modern world I believe some understanding of technical issues should be required. Impossible to legislate of course but watching people with no understanding of the background issues use any disaster such as we witness in the GOM for narrow political gain makes my hackles rise....

What's his/her name?

Wasn't Jimmy Carter an engineer? Is he considered a great success?

No, he was a peanut farmer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter

Hoover was an engineer.

"How on earth does anyone think it would be possible for a group of engineers to agree on something and then deliver it"

Now you are catching on! Congress seems to do best when they are out of session or gridlocked on a bill.

Look on the bright side : At least when they are out of session or gridlocked on a bill then they are doing less damage.

I personally have no trust in politicians - they are IMHO just in it for themselves. To be honest I am not so sure I would be any different if I was in their position, which somewhat saddens me - money and power corrupts people very easily.

"Your rights and freedoms are never in more jeopardy than when Congress is in session" - paraphrased from Sam Clemens.

You're right. Engineers seem to have trouble agreeing with the opinions of other engineers. It happens way too often when another engineer gives me his/her opinion on a problem.

I think the difference with engineers though is that they tend to back up their opinions with equations, technical studies, or even experiments.

I've started listening to Fox News radio last year and it infuriates me to hear these politicians that are backing one side of an issue and obviously have no clue about the technical implications of the issue. I don't want to get too far off subject though so I'll end here.

I think the opinion on lawyers has been covered. One immediate benefit of having engineers in congress, IMO, would be the huge amount of money saved on ideas and projects that have no merit. A few examples: The bridge to nowhere, in Alaska. Setting off off an explosive charge on the moon, when there are hundreds of thousands of impact craters to be studied. Sending people to, and colonizing mars. A lot of these ideas would never see the light of day and untold billions of dollars would be saved if more engineers/people with a scientific background were in congress.

Maybe it's because engineers like dealing with more tangible things then the wants and desires of people.

My answer is, of course, assuming good faith and competence among all involved. (I can dream.)

Engineers, in my opinion, are experts at "keeping things real" and thinking things through. Sometimes we're good at brainstorming and innovating, but to me engineering is more focused on actually making a designated something happen in the real world.

Legislation happens in the real world, even though it's a real world consisting of many millions of widely varying individuals each susceptible to a wide variety of influences. Thus, some amount of engineering input should be applied to the law, and I don't think 1/540 (or so) is an appropriate ratio.

To address this, Congress has committees of legislators who are subject matter students (if not experts), and who call upon outside experts to inform the process. This unfortunately has lead to undue influence on the process by profit-seekers.

Perhaps the creation of an independent congressional engineering review board should be considered. But it's likely that such consideration would lead to the decision that the current arrangement can work just as well.

I don't know if it would help to have more engineers in Congress or not. I don't think it would hurt. I also think it would be a benefit to the country if there were more 'regular' folks in office. By that I mean people who have been more than a career politician or attorneys.

Engineers can't agree? What about the lawyers? They only agree after they have been paid off. How about the woman in congress who thought that the "Laws of Physics" should be done away with, and wanted to know who wrote them..... and the guy that said that the extra military that we are thinking about sending to Guam, would tip the island over and it would sink..........God help us.......

Beware the misplaced decimal point.....

Well ther is at least one, but I don't think I agree with most of his ideas.

http://housingdoom.com/2010/07/07/why-americas-economy-is-in-trouble/

GA GA GA.

Engineers won't really solve the problem. There are a huge bunch of them working for military organization.. building really excellent weapons...

My point is, people go where the money is. Injuneers is no diffrent.

The real question is is here... Should the US congress (read: any government) have more people we trust, have integrity, courage, and a willingness to forfeit their own personal gain for the benefit of the people, and the intelligence to see it.

"Starship Troopers" the book, was great for a concept promoted that members of congress ought to have 2 years active military service before being allowed to run. This is along the lines that might help, as it develops the courage aspect.. but still won't prevent the crazies, money grubbers, and militaristic radicals from getting in.

we need to have conditions based on intelligence (no more W's), Honesty, Courage, and oh ya, no money... you have to support yourself. you can't earn money from political service, nor can your family benefit, you can't retire to a xxx... complete sacrifice. period. full stop. stop the money train, and you will fix the political system.. same with the bankers... it is an unrestricted gold rush, for those who have the resources, skills and ambition to survive the crossfire.

all political candidates should have the exact same publicly funded budget. no more campaign contributions.. leads to corruption. What you do with your budget is a sign of your marketing skills.

my two cents worth..

Chris

The real solution is people should pay more attention to who they are voting for and why.

All problems in government have their roots with the electorate that sponsors them.

Replace 'electorate' with 'corporations' and you might be getting close.

It all boils down to voters, not corporations. Corporations and any other political group can make a pitch for whoever they want.

However, it is the duty of the citizens to vote and their diligence is required to investigate the candidates and choose wisely.

I don't buy the argument that the flashy ad and catchy jingle made me do it. That is just trying to offload ones responsibility. Speaking of irresponsibility, is it me or does that seem to be a systemic problem these days?

I remember listening to some voters stating that they made their presidential decisions based on how cute or not cute the candidate looked. There were many other equally trite reasons people gave as well.

Frankly, if you can't take the process seriously, you have no business near a voting booth.

I don't believe things are so clearly cut. Yes what you are saying is true.. but if it were absolutely the last word on the political process, we would have seen Al Gore be president.

I still believe that money and influence bought W. a seat in the oval office, where the traditional methods would not have worked.

The best choices though, would have been Harry Browne or Ralph Nader. How much more superior in morality, intelligence, and honesty any of those 3 would have been to W. is indescribable. (don't even mention Cheney)

Chris

okay... I'm not all Al Gore or anything... I keep an open mind.. and perhaps this stuff is a bit beyond me. I have read State Of Fear by Michael Crichton, which takes an alternate stance to gore's Inconvenient Truth. (which I've watched), and I've also listened to his audio book on Assault On Reason... and I have to say... I'm torn and confused. (although pretty devoted to Crichton.. I guess he won't be running for president.)

Chris

I have more faith in Michael Crichton because he at least does legitimate research, and can back his positions with realistic arguments- he generally does not rely on the emotional reaction of his audience. I don't always agree with him, but I do find that I must think more about what he has to say, and, if I do disagree, I have to do some pretty intense study to counter his perspective...

can we get him to run for president posthumously?

The US does not use the popular vote to determine who wins the Presidency. We use an electoral college.

Al Gore did not win enough electoral votes, although, not after trying every trick his handlers could think of.

Of course, that's just the legal side of the event. Maybe you were hinting that you feel Al should have won if people had come to there senses?

I'm of the opinion that something fishy happened with the final voting. but who knows. I'm no expert on politics, US or otherwise.. perhaps I've been wrongly informed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbGOdON80Es&feature=related

the real reason he picked Palin...

When I think of where Engineers would do the most good within the US Government I lean towards wanting some in Cabinet positions. I have been recently distressed that in relation to the Deepwater Horizon Blowout, the Obama Administration has put more lawyers on it, than engineers.

My view is more gut level and intuitive about the place for engineers in government in recognition that as a group, engineers do not seem all that well suited for elective office. Many of the gifts from engineers to civilization are commissions given them by governments. Starting way back somebody like Da Vinci, who may well have had similar reasons for avoiding politics, as anybody now is right daunted at the required loss of privacy inherent in modern or politics as practiced for recorded history, preferred to work for government, over Be, -part of the government.

Right or wrong, I have great respect for anyone with the courage to run for elective office as it does require certain skills engineers as a group see often as beneath them. On this forum CR4 there is a strong current philosophically opposed to political discussion buttressing my view.

The dictionary definition of Forum, has implied political function going back to Roman times. Hence it is no wonder that while the main focus of our discussions here is founded in the concrete of engineering, the political issues consistently raise their ugly head among us.

A better more focused question more consistent with the CR4 mission would be along the lines of When Should Engineers Refuse Work on Ethical Grounds? Or When Ought Engineering Fraternity or Professional membership organizations Lobby government, as do other organizations like the NRA, or AMA, or some of the Religious groups?

Far as lawyers are concerned, they are another sort of group, more suited to politics based in running for office, than engineers.

While Democracy is a right admirable form of government, it is not perfect. Certainly all forms of government have the same responsibilities. Those are Defense and Education. Defense of the nation can be a very dirty and bloody affair, much less elegant than the finely made working machine that any engineer loves to have either created, or worked with a team to make.

The "voting public" of the US is often a superstitious lot. Further US education has for the masses been more what I would view as "training" than educating. It is human nature to be suspicious of voting for the "egghead".

In my Zelig sort of life I have had the opportunity to be around, and take the measure of a fair number of powerful men. Some you may know of, and others obscure, but important. For instance as an aircraft fueler and lineman working in Corporate Aviation I had a fairly lengthy conversation with either the President of Conoco, or Chairman of the Board - or something, when fogged in.

When working on a campaign commercial for Mark Samford during his South Carolina Senate run, I had some conversation with him. -At the time I didn't think he was very "smart", and sure enough that disappearance and lies as Governor revealed a real lack of smarts.

-Spent time around David Rockafeller, Mayoral Candidate of NYC Ravich. - Hell Lyndon Johnson landed in a helicopter and got out and said a few things and gave me his autograph...

What's the name of the guy Winston Churchill had make Mulberry Bridges and Docks? Ironic the monument to that Engineer, is an Anchor.

Possibly y'all will see my point, which is: You guys don't make very good politicians, but smart politicians will hire you, if they want to really solve a concrete problem for their people.

Trans- If you read the Constitution, you will find that the most important function of the federal government identified in that document is to provide for the Common Defense. You will not find any instructions in the document for the Government to provide for the education of the citizens- but you will find that the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) does, in fact, prohibit the Federal Government from doing anything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution (Ammendment 10). This is the part of the Constitution that was abrogated when we lost the Civil War- which was more about States' Rights than slavery.

Allowing the Government to get more involved in Education will result in improving the level of education throughout the population. It will "equalize" the level. This is NOT what you want. The only way to level a sand pile is to lower all grains to the lowest level. The education system should offer some means for the gifted student to reach beyond the resources commonly available, and the Government can not do that without creating the impression that it is playing favorites with certain groups. Better to leave education in private hands...

As you know I work on Theories of Government by my own lights, and have worked on formulating workable precepts of government specifically for Transcendia.

While I have great respect for the US Constitution, it is not the end all and be all and I do see Education as a legitimate place for my government to spend income from taxes.

Was it right for Ben Franklin to push for and cause the free lending library system in the US? I do see Defense of the Nation as the number one responsibility of any government to its citizens, and would be forced to fight physically or intellectually however able to defend my home, and those I was by birth or commitment responsible to, from harm.

Some great deal of my education was paid for by taxes on property possessed by others. I am grateful for that.

If every US Citizen had forever had as a consequence of the blood and sacrifice what Veterans of WWII got in the form of the GI Bill, the US would not be failing now as those Veterans have entered memory. Essentially the survivors won access to education. The diminishment of US status and power is a direct result of failures of the educational system. A nation cannot defend itself if it does not have a citizenry that knows how to take care of themselves.

It is strongly in the interest of any nation to make sure all citizens are educated, regardless of how that might conflict with private interests that may well be businesses involved in selling education.

My local experience with hospitals when either I was dying, or a friend of mine was dying, at about the same day ironically, was that I got better care at UNCH than my friend got at Duke.

While it is on its face philosophically correct that no government ought to gut the potential of an independent of the governments institution to make money, some government responsibilities override the legitimate pursuit of profit from work. Therefore I feel Ben Franklin had a leg to stand on, when he pushed for free lending libraries. In other words I am for the nation spending as much money on education, as it might on defense, for ignorant people cannot defend themselves, or the nation, and the nation that possesses the most educated people will triumph.

When there are new frontiers and opportunity for growth, then the nation grows. When frontiers and opportunity are lessened, the nation eats itself. (the greedy will violate mores, and practice deceit to obtain the value that exists in the country.)

Education makes people of the frontiers and creates opportunities.

History is repeating itself I think.

stimulating well written stuff Russell.

chris

Publicly funded Driver Education as part of the US High School Curriculium. Good thing I learned to drive in the Boy Scouts, but some kids are too cool to do that these days.

Education actually is too important for the government to ignore as a responsibility.

I myself do not fully trust the general public. I myself don't trust the elites either.

Having read a great number of books that were vetted, and either messing around here, or otherwise going to Wikepedia, I distrust Wikepedia and am glad I have background information from vetted books I read. I'd send kids to the library before I'd tell them to look for it online.

I often hold two diametrically opposed views of things. On one hand I believe in compulsory education, but on the other I don't want untruths, and propaganda to be taught.

The great leaders endorse and pay for education, but take their hands off what is taught.

What do they teach at West Point anyway? By the time you get to University there is a reason you had Elementary, and High School education. It is a sad thing that so many public schools are as dangerous as they have become. I have been to schools where murder was a threat if you simply showed up because you were supposed to.

Chicago is a tough town. Within days of showing up for school I was punched in the face for just being there, and during the year was beaten and arrested by the police for defending my cousin from the police in a school riot over content of the curriculium. On one hand it is great that the school existed, but on the other hand it it is sad I was forced to go to a place that represented great threats to my physical well being.

Really I hate to say it, but some bullies ought to be killed early in the playground, or in the hallways. Some of the worst people I have ever known grew up to be sheriffs and policemen, and the world would be better off if I'd killed them when I had the chance. The liberal view is that no one is really bad, but all of us just do bad things.

Screw that, some people are bad to the bone.

Where was I?

Standardization is good for the floor. Excellence may well not be repeatable. Some are artists, and some are engineers. Kill the barbarians. It's what they want from you, since they have no values and no education and will do all they can to get what you have from work that is beyond their training, education, or beliefs. What did Patrick Moynahan really say? The real war is between the civilized and the barbaric? Round where I live there are many in power who are unethical about how they use power for just themselves. They have money to pay for private schooling of their children. They look down on people like me who work. My work for them is intended to finance expenditures for their kids, and my children are lucky to survive assaults their kids ought to feel in their guts.

I'm very happy today since I got my wife to go out with me for a drink at the bar.

The little kitten is still okay. My daughter is okay. It's good I haven't had cause to stab any individual barbarians that roam around the neighborhood lately.

ah, so that is what happiness.. or should I say, the 'pursuit of happiness' is.

in my opinion, Heaven has but one rule. but it is everything. the golden rule. no need for opposed POV's.

chris

Little extreme I got there. Memories of beatings and fights and heart pounding runs, facing guns when shopping for bacon and coffee at the grocery store must have clouded my peaceful mind.

Yair, the day you reduce all laws to nothing but the golden rule will probably be the same day everybody has been educated to the point where their only goal in life is to make each other happy, and all have the means to do so.

True poverty isn't not having stuff and money, true poverty is not having enough to be able to give stuff away.

What might an Engineer in either the Senate, or House of Representative do according to our hopes for a Utopia? Civilization rests on the foundation of excess energy. Engineers in Congress would likely be better at Energy Policy, than lawyers, though everybody hates lawyers till they need one. The ideal of the attorney is that they are your advocate. Many Engineers who have been successful have had help from attorneys. Internationally the US government has failed engineers when they invent, and patent, and build and market, only to see their work stolen still by authoritarian nationstates. Artists haven't had their work protected either.

(It is my personal theory that since many artists are Liberal, Republicans don't mind much if their work is ripped off, and their profits diminished. The pirating of movies and CDs in China and Russia has had significant impact on the fortunes of artists. It is not out of the question at all to see that as contributing to further theft of intellectual property significant to the fortunes of Engineers, and the companies they create.

So then in Congress the Engineer Senator, may well speak for inventors. If they studied some of the Blog threads on CR4 about energy issues, they may well vote differently as far as government support and subsidies for the bets our government places in our behalf.

As your avowed political science major of the CR4 group, who often imagines what I might do with political power, I know as far as renewables are concerned I'd be betting shared money on Hydropower, over Wind. Hell, the major population centers are massed up along the coasts anyway. Cheap electric power maintains the viability for old boom towns like Rochester NY, or Buffalo still. One of my friends in Rochester, New York says the place is great now, shrunk to its perfect level.

The greatest contribution demanded of Engineers in the nasty world of politics, would appear to me to be, and have been issues of energy.

Much of our world comes from Edison, and Tesla. Tesla was a big believer in Eugenics, Obsessive Compulsive, and Celibate. Fat Chance he'd be a great Senator.

The politician is constantly having to be logically illogical. To be a successful politician one must be willing to get people to do the right thing, even if to do so one must cleave to spurious, or even the wrong reason for that good that is to be accomplished. This is one of the reasons it is damned hard sometimes to figure out what is really going on.

This is why I joke in the end that, "My Crook, Is Better than Your Crook!"

It is generally understood around here on CR4 that US Energy Policy will affect personal fortunes of many of the Engineering community. The US might be well better off hiring French Nuclear Power professionals for the needed nuke power plants for the pressing requirements of the US for Energy Independence. As a Politician, I might turn around and say hire them, they have a good record in that area. Then I might turn around and compare it to the hiring of Blackwater, Zee, or whatever it is now. You sort of want mercenaries to prefer to work for you, than the other guy. Having refused to do bids for some jobs, I have a willingness to hire who I think will do the best job, for the fairest price, and know it takes what it takes and costs what it costs. I have flat out told clients on occasion that they were lying about the conditions of the job, and I'd not do it going in with any illusions they might want to foist on me.

Far as I'm concerned about Al Gore, he did one very important thing in his role as Vice President. Traditionally since NASA was created, the VP has had great influence over it. Gore did give Russian Rocket Scientists work so as to obviate some real possibilities of their working for others against our national interests.

Both he and Clinton have failed to help Transcendian Television as it was envisioned for influencing world peace in the mental landscape so shaped by TV. News, Entertainment and Education are what the perfect TV Channel provides. When I look at what is powerful and in the right hands could challenge the power of the bomb, and the guns, and all that, it is the TV that could do the job.

Real Free Speech is a threat to many member nations of the UN, and that's why it does not produce an Internationally available Television Channel.

We know that many children in the US have benefitted greatly from shows like Sesame Street. The explosion of youth with little exposure to classrooms demands the Televised School, or University experience.

I sure would like to be able to watch Harvard TV. One of my most cherished books in the house is a book of lectures by William James. Would be really cool if Universities made as much money from televised lectures, as they do from Football and Basketball games.

Geek Stars!

Where was I? I'm off on my own political tangent.

I write long pieces here to lose the spies.

P.S. Did you know that the home of Uncle Sam is officially Troy New York?

The real profit of art is not money.

Effectiveness in politics is

• 1) conducting a continuous war of information.
• 2) controlling where money goes and what it does.
• 3) similar to #1, is managing the appearance of situations and people (propaganda) so that you can accomplish #2
• 4) retaining and consolidating the power you gain. (also related to 1,2, & 3)
• 5) reaching more people with a positive message.

where does the information about Tesla being a supporter of Eugenics come from?

Wikipedia readings indicated Tesla was for Eugenics.

Actually I did read a paperback biography of Tesla years ago, and look at his depiction in Atlas Shrugged as significant. In fact I actually did live for awhile on Madison Ave either near the UN when in the 66th and Madison Ave block, or at Madison and 27th, which was a Tesla neighborhood, Tin Pan Alley, and by the wonderful monstrosity, the Metropolitan Life Building.

thank you...

just for you

I probably ought to write another speech.

Yah, know a great speech is supposed to Educate, Entertain, and Inspire. How many Engineers do you know, or know of capable, or giving speeches? It really may not be their thing.

Carter was said to be primarily a peanut farmer, but wasn't he also during his military service a nuclear sub captain, or something like that? There is that story that after you are elected you are called into a room and basically told, "This is the real deal, You may well have been elected President, but we're in charge, and you will do what we want."

(I was invited to Carter's Inaguration. The administration was a disappointment to me. Later I invented Transcendia so I could be at least as disappointing apparently, so far.

Didn't Reagan have the Solar Panels torn off the roof of the White House? Why he would be such a hero to so many engineering types is beyond me. Who advised Reagan to show who won by tearing down solar panels? I mean ending the Cold War, and tearing down the Berlin Wall was okay with me, but I remember complaining that pure gleeful free market Capitalists weren't doing us any favors by basically raping Russia, at near every opportunity.

It is a shame my hopes that Russia would become a State in the Union, has not been realized. US and UK Contract Law is important to have for capitalism to work, and the Russians needed some of that, while we, the US needed to recreate the Bi Polar Power Balance. A united Russia and US with the best of the Federal System would have recreated the Bi Polar Power Balance in relation to the rise of China.

It has been discussed here, and pointed out that there are many Engineers in the Government of China.

If more Engineers were in the US Congress would it make the US more like China? Would this be a good thing?

China is awfully polluted these days.

http://www.4shared.com/get/ifv6Dnqw/Innovation_versus_standardizat.html

You might argue that 'standardization destroys excellence', but I'm not entirely persuaded. Excellence comes from exceptional individuals, often from exceptional families.

The Newsweek article The Creativity Crisis touches on nearly every point about education you mention. It's a good read.

Excellence comes from deeds and actions of superior caliber. This is not just the sole domain of the elite, but has also been documented to come from ordinary individuals in moments of greatness many times.

Thanks for the link. I was unaware that these research-based programs for teaching creativity were available and apparently successful. That gives me some hope. If I have one point to quibble with it is the way the article downplays the importance of hardship.

I didn't really grow up in hardship, by my parents were both children of the great depression, and they did. As a result they weren't much into buying things, like for example piles of toys for us kids, and so we learned to make things for ourselves out of stuff we found in the garage, basement and barns. Necessity is the mother of invention and all that...

It didn't hurt that both my parents were educated, and since my dad was an engineer he could often gently point us in the right direction when our projects ran into trouble.

As to our current education system and the need to reform it, I think it is unfortunate that many people don't distinguish between our current (conservative led) obsession with standardized test scores, and the more general idea of national standards. In our case (the US) this standardization leads many teachers to 'teach to the test', but it is wrong to blame that on standardization. It is our narrow definition of what those standards should be that is causing the problem. As this article shows we could choose more wisely.

Lynn- some very important concepts presented in this article...

I like what you are saying a lot. ga.

my only response to the first part 'but this seems like a pretty narrow view." is that they announced yesterday that 2-5 percent of the money for haiti had actually been delivered. I think that is criminal and negligent of the first order. wrong in so many ways. I recognize that this is purely by design, and that all the teeth have been pulled long ago by those who might change it.

so both points of view are true.

chris

Very good points you raise...

Pretty subtle eh?

"Do or Do Not! There is no Try. Yoda"

First post and you hit the ground running! Welcome to CR4.

welcome to cr4! ga

Basically I regard what you have written as claptrap.

Or may I say it as toadying insults to a profession just as important as anything you might do.

You snots intent on running attorneys and politicians off the forum are pathetic clueless fools who will always cry a different tune when you need help.

The Wright Brothers were great engineers and inventors.

I agree that it is simplistic to place too much of the blame on the lawyers. In many cases there is also a jury of private citizens involved, and it is only by swaying the jury that the lawyers can prevail (there are other cases of course that are settled out of court, or in a trial without a jury). So we come back to the same issue you mentioned earlier in this thread of the need for an informed and grown-up citizenry that can make rational decisions without being unduly swayed by emotional arguments and clever word-play.

The difficulty as I see it is that after several generations of exposure to television and specifically television advertising, a lot of us have lost the ability to tell the difference between logic and emotion. It often seems to me that many people select fictional characters from TV land as their role models. The people who run the networks are plenty smart, as are the folks who run the ad agencies, and they both have benefited greatly from the few scraps of real scientific insight that emerge from the fetid swamp of the academic social sciences. Through screening sessions and focus groups they fine tune their messages for maximum effect. In recent years it appears that these same scientific principles are being applied to the delivery of 'news'. I don't see how this is going to work out well for us. I'm not arguing that there aren't good, sensible people out there - only the the s#!t heads appear to have a very firm grip on the upper hand at the moment.

I think you put it well. Until things get really bad there is no call for action by citizens to fix the issues. Until then we will continue to slide.

Unfortunately this isn't exactly the case. consider that most large developers utilize lawyers to keep on the projects and move them along. As a Engineer, the inertia most often seen comes not from the lawyers themselves, as all they are doing is what ever they are directed to do such that they can be paid. The inertia against progress frequently comes from people with strong opinions who seem to be stuck in their perceptions of a past world. The people who more often then not kill projects due to excessive incurred or projected costs, are environmental activists, biologists, historians, archeologists, and other "ist" who are concerned more about preserving things as they believe (frequently without foundation) they once may have been. I know of an old burn dump that the biologist want a offset land for bird habitat donation set aside before removal can begin to clean up the heavy metals contamination at the site that has been proposed to restore the site to a publicly usable condition. It is a regulated site with controlled groundcover, no trees, no irrigation, that is constantly being graded and surfaced to protect against releases of the waste and has traps for rodents and other animals to protect the cover from disturbance. So it is probably the worst type of habitat now for birds. I have seen biologist triple the cost of an engineering project. These are the real reasons large infrastructure project have so much inertia. I once heard a professor on CEQA/NEPA explaining why no new dams would ever be built in California unless the laws were changed with regards to these environmental resources. There were just too many extra costs and special needs relating to habitat and environmental resources that must be bought off, too many ways in which these interests can stall a project through legal processes, and delays cost money. You can end up with a project having to offset 25% of the land for Kit foxes in an area where no Kit foxes have ever been seen, just because it could be habitat and the biologists believe Kit foxes may have once ranged in the area historically and the habitat is similar to some where they reside 400 miles south.

Lawyers are the messengers of others, and people always want to kill the messengers if they don't like the message not the person it comes from.

I don't see where having engineers in the senate would make any difference. They may be engineers, but they are politicians FIRST.