Posted on 05/29/2004 6:51:29 AM PDT by liberallarry
THERE IS BOTH good news and bad news in the flurry of reports describing the decline of American preeminence in science. Falling numbers of scientific papers and prizes, as well as the relative drop in levels of funding and students, provide evidence of this decline. The good news is that it means other governments across the globe have begun investing heavily in basic scientific research. It also means that foreign companies have been investing in research and development, creating opportunities that make more people want scientific careers in their countries. More research anywhere creates more possibilities for innovation everywhere.
Yet the reports from the National Science Foundation and elsewhere indicate that the decline is not only relative. It is also absolute: American science is growing weaker, although not across the board. The boom in research and funding for the biological sciences -- including genetics and molecular biology -- has been matched by a decline in funding for, and interest in, physics and math.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Here's what I gather you're implying: "Zealots who think that any investigation of nature constitutes a threat to their religious beliefs"
do not surf the 'net because, oh, it stands to reason.
There are certainly plenty "six-day creationists/young Earthers" on the 'net and on FR who believe if something contradicts the Bible, it is not true. Are you objecting to the way he stated it?
Thank "education reform." It will only get worse under No Child Left Behind (the Wall Street Journal has had several articles in the past year on this.) Gifted programs all over are being cut, to divert resources to pushing bottom-of-the-barrel students up into the "proficient" category on NCLB-mandated tests.
Since breakthroughs in theory cannot be predicted, we need to look at the process by which such advances come about. If we are going to reach any such space utopia, it will be by the same process that led to the development of microcomputers and the Internet over the last thirty years. Nobody planned what we have today ahead of time: each set of researchers, mostly private, saw only a short distance ahead of itself to some commercial goal. In getting to each of these increments, astonishing and unknown side avenues of attack opened up - "et itur ad astra" (And we go to the stars...)
Well, a strawman can be the target of an objection. And a strawman does not surf the net, let alone comment on a FR thread.
That's very interesting..... and makes way too much sense!
No, actually, it doesn't make sense.
One of the first rules of thumb in law is that if you think a word, phrase, or clause in a law (and the Constitution is itself the highest law of the land) has no meaning, then you're reading it wrong. Phrases aren't thrown into laws just for color, they're there because they were intended to invoke some legal effect.
Article 1, Section 8 says that Congress shall have the power to use public monies "to provide for the general welfare" because, by gosh, it intends for Congress to have the power to spend money on the general welfare.
Additionally, would you actually want Congress to *NOT* have the power to spend a dime on anything that provides for the general welfare of the country, *except* for defense purposes *only*? That'd be crazy.
But specifically addressing the notion that "If there were a general welfare power, then why bother to enumerate a bunch of specific powers in the same Section", this question overlooks several key and critical points.
1. The "general welfare power" is not an "all-inclusive do anything they want in the general welfare power" -- it only authorizes *SPENDING* on the general welfare, NOT any other actions which might promote the general welfare.
2. The other parts of Article 1, Section 8 (i.e. clauses 2-18) have to do with ENFORCEMENT powers -- things the federal government is authorized to COMPELL states or individuals to do, or PROHIBIT them from doing (by force of law), or ENGAGE IN as a federal action (like run the post offices, for example).
3. Spending places no such obligation on anyone; whether someone or some group gets paid by the federal government to do some job or provide some service is *voluntary*, while the power granted in the rest of Article 1, Section 8 are enumerated powers of *compulsion*.
4. This is why the "compulsive powers" are put on a very strict leash and thus specifically enumerated, while the spending power in Clause 1 is less specified and stated more broadly.
5. This is also why the enumerated powers in Clauses 2-18 (and the first half of Clause 1, concerning the power to force tax collections) do not in any way overlap the nonenumerated, noncompulsive *spending* powers granted in the second half of Clause 1. This is why it's *not* illogical for there to simultaneously be a "general welfare" *spending* power, *and* enumerated "controlling" powers in "the same section".
Okay....
And interesting -- and in my experience, unique -- analysis of the issue. I don't find your reasoning persuasive (the "spending vs. coercion" distinction) but no matter. Many people, some of them rather illustrious like Hamilton, would support your conclusion. But it seems to me that your conclusion is contrary to the "small, weak" government which was the generally-popular idea at the time of the Convention. Anyway, there were probably people with your opinion and those with mine at the very beginning. As there are today. And as there will be tomorrow.
You left out "Environmental Studies", that amount to pure propaganda for the eco nut left.
The biggest problem is that there is typically very little "hands-on" science in the primary grades. Elementary teachers are unprepared to teach science.
Have you seen the movie "Destination Moon"? It was made in 1950 based on a Heinlein novel. It attempted a realistic depiction of how a moon launch could be accomplished. The thesis was that some respected industry leader gathered together many other industry leaders to pool their resources to beat the Russians to the moon. Imagine that--a true victory of capitalism over communism. Instead, people now almost universally believe that it REQUIRES force of government to accomplish such grand feats. This is, in a way, is an ideological victory for the Soviets.
Hopefully the success of grand private ventures like the Chunnel will help people realize better the possibilities of freedom over force--that freedom leads to sustainable accomplishments.
Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.
The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!
-- Final paragraphs of The Federalist No. 41, attributed to Madison.
Ouch. I mean, damn, that stings!
Yes. I may shamelessly adopt some of their techniques for our evo debates. Those guys really knew how to respond to lame objections.
And yet we find evidence of such people here on FR on a daily basis. Go figure.
Slide number one should have, in big, red letters: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."
True. At least it was a great put-down in its time. But in politics, unfortunately, even with a clearly-written Constitution, if the people lack virtue then the only "facts" that count are the votes. It's not quite the same in science. We don't (yet) vote on reality. Of course, public support for what you do depends on voters, so some uneasiness is justified.
I should also add that in abandoning basic research in the hard sciences, the government is only reflecting the attitudes of the public.
Abandon is a good word. I have friends in grad school that changed their PhD endeavor from physics to engineering for this very reason. They wanted jobs upon graduation outside of academia.
But don't take my word for it: let this thread stay up for a while, and the FR science haters will come to enlighten us.
No kidding. Been there done that, got the ribbon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.