World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[ElkinFencer10]

Do you really think that Dear Leader Most Honorable Supreme Leader, President-Elect Trump

FIFY

[marurun]

Our politicians aren't wrong in their thinking, per se, but they are operating off of outdated information.

If our politicians are incapable of incorporating new (new as in several years old) information when crafting policy decisions, can we really rely on them to make good policy?

[Sarge]

Our politicians aren't wrong in their thinking, per se, but they are operating off of outdated information.

If our politicians are incapable of incorporating new (new as in several years old) information when crafting policy decisions, can we really rely on them to make good policy?

That's a great question, actually.

(And to clarify, I see this from all our politicians to some degree.)

[marurun]

Our politicians aren't wrong in their thinking, per se, but they are operating off of outdated information.

If our politicians are incapable of incorporating new (new as in several years old) information when crafting policy decisions, can we really rely on them to make good policy?

That's a great question, actually.

This scares me as much as individual political differences. I know political parties each have their blind spots to certain types of science or data, but the whole ideology trumping reality thing constantly worries me.

I also worry how many lawyers and business-people are in congress.

[prfsnl_gmr]

I also worry how many lawyers and business-people are in congress.

Not enough of either. Too many career politicians, IMO.

[MrPopo]

I move we impose some serious term limits.

All in favor say die.

[Blu]

Isn't that what Cruz was introducing this morning? A term limits amendment to the Constitution?

[Sarge]

I'd very much be game for that. I've been in favor of term limits since I started tracking politics as a wee one.

There are a lot of lawyers in Congress, although that's to be expected given that they're in the business of making laws to begin with. There definitely aren't enough business people, or doctors, or engineers.

I'm going to make a weird kind of counterargument to some of my thinking, just as a thought experiment. I know we talk about ideology vs. facts on the ground, and how we are often driven by ideology instead. But really, in a job that becomes rather complex, it could be argued that one can't stay fully informed on everything. Therefore, one has to have some general rules of governance to use, to inform what to do in the case of missing (or conflicting!) information. Basically, in some ways, ideology is a sort of heuristic to simplify decision-making.

[marurun]

There are a lot of lawyers in Congress, although that's to be expected given that they're in the business of making laws to begin with. There definitely aren't enough business people, or doctors, or engineers.

Compared to doctors, engineers, and scientists, there's WAY more than enough business people. But what about philosophers, or psychologists, or teachers, or professional academics? We need them, too.

I'm going to make a weird kind of counterargument to some of my thinking, just as a thought experiment. I know we talk about ideology vs. facts on the ground, and how we are often driven by ideology instead. But really, in a job that becomes rather complex, it could be argued that one can't stay fully informed on everything. Therefore, one has to have some general rules of governance to use, to inform what to do in the case of missing (or conflicting!) information. Basically, in some ways, ideology is a sort of heuristic to simplify decision-making.

I agree. Ideology is a heuristic of sorts. But these politicians have massive numbers of staffers AND the Library of Congress at their beck and call, not to mention a variety of other experts employed by the federal government. It should be easy to rely on these professionals to provide accurate information, but politicians allow their ideology to override guidance from these experts and support professionals (except maybe staffers; staffers are often cut from similar cloth to the politicians who hire them). And I can tell you as a librarian that government information sources are some of the most reliable.

Government scientists and research experts are some of the most dispassionate and capable people in their respective fields. NASA, NOAA, USGS... all hire many of the best and brightest to conduct research. If there's any politicking or ideology in the mix it's in the form of government appointees assigned to manage or head these divisions. Even our government regulatory agencies are typically staffed with intelligent, capable, well-intentioned people. But lack of funding and political backing can force them to get too cozy with the industries they manage, and again with the political appointees.

I would argue that the federal government is even better than private industry at hiring well-educated, competent, capable experts and researchers. Private industry often imposes goals on researchers: make us something we can profit from, demonstrate that our products aren't harmful/are helpful, prove our critics wrong. But the best and brightest researchers and scientists are interested in the chase itself, not prestige or money. They just want to know: how does the world work, how can we accomplish this in the best way possible, how can we do the most good? Academics are often like this before the tenure process forces them to publish or perish, meaning they can end up chasing relevance like dogs chase their tails.

[marurun]

Wall Street Journal is currently quoting several prominent Republican politicians' hopes that Donald Trump will soon get with the program and accept the reality of Russia's hacking efforts.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/lawmakers-o ... 1483554450