DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
quote:
ORIGINAL: thishereboi
From the article...
"The proposal should have passed easily. But last week, Larry Hart, a former Republican congressional aide and current representative of the American Conservative Union (the country's oldest politically conservative lobbying group), sent a letter to House Republicans claiming that this position is far from benign. Hart writes that the laureate, appointed by President Obama, "will share his view that science should serve political ends, on such issues as climate change and regulation of greenhouse gases.""
Doesn't have shit to do with being afraid of science but once again a lib has to lie to get his point across.
A science laureate will have exactly as much power over US scientific policy as the Poet Laureate has over the direction of modern literature.
Zero.
Have you considered that Mr Hart is the one lying out his ass because he's an ignorant bible Beater?
A politically appointed science laureate won't dictate US policy, but will be lifted up to a position of authority, even if it's just a symbolic one. While there is no policy dictating, there is the opportunity to push political points from that position of authority. When one is in a position of authority, it's easy to sway people one way or another simply by the position. As an example (not exactly the same, but similar), this is why it's illegal to dress and act like a LEO. There is much authority in that position, and it's easy to take advantage of people when someone assumes a person is an authority.
***Note: I am not saying LEO's shouldn't have authority.
Want to know what's funny about the article? This:quote:
An aide for Randy Hultgren of Illinois, Republican co-sponsor of the bill, said: "This is not a presidential appointment, and there would be no taxpayer money involved. This bill is simply a chance to show our children that discovery science is important and that science can be an exciting and rewarding career."
Why is that funny? Well, Randy Hultgren is a co-sponsor, right? How is it that this isn't a Presidential Appointment when the bill (HR 1891) states:SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF SCIENCE LAUREATES OF THE UNITED STATES. (a) POSITION ESTABLISHED.—Congress recognizes that science contributes to the economic prosperity and general welfare of the United States, and that increasing the public’s awareness about the sciences will increase such benefits. Congress also recognizes that scientists who are both accomplished in their fields and who foster the public’s interest in science do a special service to the United States. To honor their service and to further increase the public’s awareness about the sciences, there is established the position of Science Laureate of the United States.
(b) APPOINTMENT.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The President shall appoint a Science Laureate on the basis of—
How can it not be a Presidential appointment when the bill specifically states that the President shall appoint people to the position?!?
IMO, the President (not just the current one, every one elected in the future) should have no say in this at all. And, neither should the Legislative Branch. I am not against there being a Science Laureate position, but I am against the laureate being an appointment of Government. As I put forth in another post on this, I'd have no issue supporting this if the Science Laureate position was filled by the National Science community (you know, like a "jury of one's peers" idea). IMO, a much, much better idea and one that is less likely to be an abused process.
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: It's official - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread