I’m not posting this to hate on lawyers, we need some lawyers in office, but I agree with him, where is everyone else?
Hmm…let’s think about what Congress really is: A bunch of people who present arguments to convince others to do or not do X. Then they all argue about pros and cons, short term vs long term, etc.
What does that sound like to you? To me, it sounds like what a lawyer does, EVERY.SINGLE.DAY. Proposals, supporting documentation, summarization, etc.
They don’t test anything out. They don’t build, develop or create. They argue and write rules.
Lawyers, (faith leaders), accountants and business leaders do this as part of who they are.
Scientists investigate, test, innovate, test again, theorize, postulate, etc.
Engineers perform a similar function except there’s more building, reproducing, tearing down, rebuilding, etc.
Now does this make sense?
PS Lawyers make it their life’s work to be right in court/law/business. Not morally/ethically/etc. correct, but doing right by themselves and whoever they work for. If engineers spent all their time to be 100% correct, instead of right (now), no cars would cost less than $100k, no homes would ever get finished, and no bridges would be totally safe.
I hear what you’re saying, and I’m not sure if I 100% agree. I do appreciate the thoughtful response. I’d say that having different approaches to problems wouldn’t be such a bad idea.
Engineers and Scientists certainly perform the functions you mention (i.e., test, innovate), but how do they get the funds and tools necessary to perform their work? If a scientist or engineer has a good idea, don’t they need to write a project proposal and try to convince someone else (e.g., management, humanitarian organization) to give them the resources they need to conduct their research?
Rhetoric is a basic, essential skill for all individuals regardless of profession. Lawyers do use it daily, but that fact does not mean individuals currently employed in other professions are by default inept at this art.
You state that Congress doesn’t test anything out. Why are there so many amendments to laws then? Aren’t the initial laws just like initial trials in a scientific experiment, with the follow-on amendments analogous to subsequent trials that attempt to converge on the optimal solution?
You also state that Congress doesn’t build, develop or create anything. Don’t the laws they enact comprise a system, the intangible framework that is our functioning government? Does this framework differ in principle from the circuitry that an electrical engineer builds to run a computer, or the powertrain that a mechanical engineer designs for an automobile?
I agree that lawyers make it a life’s work to be right, and will stop at nothing to be 100% correct. Isn’t that why judges/jurors act as the objective, neutral party in a courtroom to make the final decisions? If that is in fact the case, then who’s acting as that objective, neutral party in our current government?
If you had a room full of lawyers who each thought they were 100% right, you’d get nowhere, and one could argue that we have that now in the current environment.
Lawyers want to be right. Engineers and Scientists solve problems.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.