Representing More Than a Law School Reunion

If you were watching the informative and decidedly left-wing hilarity of Real Time with Bill Maher (aired Friday, 8/5/2011), you undoubtedly noticed the presence of Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson and a rather astute observation he made.

The observation regarded the fact that from 540 current members of Congress, 236 hold law degrees (58 Senators and 178 Representatives). That means 44%
of people in congress are, essentially, lawyers by trade. He went further to ask "Where is the rest of life?" or why more scientists, economists, entrepreneurs and basically people from other areas of expertise don't take on postings in public office; people that can give a more rounded representation of the American public's goals and necessities? To paraphrase Dr. Tyson's remark, given the nature of law and the courts it is an arguer's forum. He whose arguing skills are superior will win the favorable ruling and not the one with the superior argument. Therefore, the facts are null and void unless in hands of the appropriate, purple-faced loudmouth with a law degree.

Long story short, he made me think.

Precisely why is it that more of the aforementioned scientists, entrepreneurs and economists don't apply their expertise in a leadership role? A role so significant, a "second pair of eyes", that can provide insight on how the government can better serve the public? Are the able, decidedly, unwilling to participate? Is it acceptable to stay in their positions as academic leaders, but not political? Ain't that a damn shame?

With the recent drop in the U.S. credit rating, despite all the valid and pertinent facts that the Democratic party argued, 98% of the debt deal sided with the Republican Party's wishes. Now, suppose actual businessmen who know that to make money you must spend money, made up the greater majority on both sides? Even if there was a compromise, would it not have been a 50/50 split? No one can say for sure, but given the actual result, would it be so wrong to have a different type of professional in congress? A more diverse base of knowledge from which the decisions that shape the future of the nation could function?

Well? What's so bad about that?

What The Hell Are You Waiting For?

In a United States gripped by fears of not being able to find a job, we have to ask ourselves what we bring to the world stage in this day and age.

An old flash article listing the statistics of job availability pre and post September 11, 2001 (found here) courtesy of CNN makes a fine illustration of how the job market had begun it's downward spiral. Today, surveying the consequential crash of that spiral, would it not be prudent to ask "Where is the money going?"

While a year after the attack claimed nigh of 3,000 victims, it claimed numerous jobs in the following year. Meanwhile, the U.S. Military experienced one of its highest base pay raises in decades. No such thing as a "win-win" or so it would seem.

Now the Armed Forces of the United States are some of the most formidable, experienced and "involved" armed forces in the world. Our military spending, topping out $680 billion in Fiscal Year 2010 alone, accounted for 12.7% of federal discretionary spending. But hey, the Department of Education is neck-and-neck so that's a win-win, right?

You do remember I had mentioned that in order to win, someone must lose, right?

Well, the loss inherent, is in global involvement. If all we're bringing to the world is men with guns, how then is it a significant contribution? The last time we were involved in a conflict with an undeniably problematic foe was during the second World War, and after that came the cold war. Now, Eisenhower warned us about this during his farewell address in 1961, however our adherence to this warning is not evident; therein we became reliant on the Military Industrial Complex and became consumers, not producers.

Don't even get me started on petroleum consumption...

The answer lies in building a better tomorrow. To reiterate, BUILDING a better world, not taking what good we can gain from it. You may resent that I use the term "we" in this article vice "they" as it pertains to the Federal Government. But considering this is a democracy, we are all equally at fault for equal votes. I challenge the United States, and everyone who dwells within, to create, innovate, patent, build, fix and abstain from fighting with a new vigor. I challenge you to stop voting for those whose idea of foreign policy involves a deployment to a resource rich country, and wants to scare you into believing that they are a "clear and present danger." when they're about as threatening as a rabbit with seasonal pollen allergies in an arboretum.