Trump news conference

[mikel2]

>>>>>Yes, but its all about emotion.<<<<<
____________________________


Indeed it is



<<<<<So the politician chooses some policy that fits with his/her prejudices and this upsets a lot of scientists. Scientists early in their careers might complain, but their senior folk will distance themselves because they all fear funding cuts.

The policy is implemented. If it works and voters seem to like it all is well, if it fails and voters hate it the politician changes it.
Scientists get very vexed by all of this. They hate the idea of emotion over-riding their careful logic, but they get used to their feelings and although bitter carry on as they have been trained because they believe it is the right thing. They get to believing that politicians are not that clever because they quickly change their minds and have no underlying laws to work to and this breeds a feeling of superiority in the scientist and some even get to believing that they could do a better job than the politician. Most of the ones who try find the emotion driven world outside of science far more complicated and difficult than anything they have ever dealt with and generally make a mess.<<<<<
__________________________________

Absolutely right it is the liberal cash streams or the fear of loosing them that often go a long way to influencing much policy of whatever shape that rightly or wrongly help determine our position.

Bearing in mind human institutions do not or will not ever stand up to the rigours of scientific analysis or dictat its not surprising that minds are continually changing and when the cash streams dry up there will no doubt be much more mind changing amongst the scientists or whoever is lucky enough to be in receipt of such influences.

I am afraid where emotion is concerned much logic will always be tossed out of the window that is probably because we are human and humans are largely driven by animal spirits which are not entirely driven by the strict principals of validity.

Not a comfortably thought but one does not have to look far to see examples of reckless, bordering on corrupt behaviour in almost any sphere of modern day life.

Trump wont change he world but he is likely in my view to shake it up a bit and point towards a new reality.


Regards

[mikel2]

Trump doesn't appear to be wasting any time with that new reality.

“Trump signs order for $12bn Mexican wall”
https://newstral.com/en/article/en/1054 ... xican-wall

and business seems to like it

“Dow Jonesat record highs – is Trump good for stockmarkes?”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/ni ... p-policies


The only tthing that I muse over is that this wall building is such an enormous undertaking, I mean a proposal to start around 2000 miles of construction almost splitting a continent and as yet there doesn't seem to have beena whisper of enviromental concern or protest.

Surely there must be some aspects of endangered wildlife, apart from human that will be affected by such a project.
We have our very own great crested newt and its kindred spirits that have the ability to close down projects from day one or the discovery of a rare butterfly, bat or or some other unusual fly by night may have asimilar potential but here we have an underaking on such a grand scale that doesn't appear to have any environmental negatives.

I do haveto shake my head in wonder but maybe its early days.


Regards

[odysseus2000]

Mikel2 wrote:
Surely there must be some aspects of endangered wildlife, apart from human that will be affected by such a project.
We have our very own great crested newt and its kindred spirits that have the ability to close down projects from day one or the discovery of a rare butterfly, bat or or some other unusual fly by night may have asimilar potential but here we have an underaking on such a grand scale that doesn't appear to have any environmental negatives.

Ha, Ha, the environmental angle is another of the great media things of which great things are said and for which very little is actually done.

Sure you can read all manner of articles about how some huge development was stopped because someone discovered an endangered molecule.

Translated this means, either the developer as upset the council and they are booting the developer in their naughty bits or the council has a lot of environmental folk, as do most developers who need to be given something to do. The end result is almost always that the development goes ahead, which anyhow will be part of some overall council submitted and government approved local planning document, but it will cost more.

The wall is anyhow in places now officially a fence and there isn't one planned for the Pacific or Atlantic sea board or for Canada. Sure it may stop casual walk overs and it will create a lot of jobs and once the Trump holiday resorts on the near side of the moon are opened it will provide an alternative to looking at the Great Wall of China. Perhaps they will write Trump on the top in bright leds to make the seeing easier.

Regards,