View Single Post
Old 05-06-2013, 09:49 AM   #39
B-Large
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
People on Committee are like a jury where you know they don't know everything, but they are supposed to listen to expert testimoney and make rational decisions right?

I don't aree that just because i don't have a degree in science that I could not make a good decision on how to spend money in the space program. A rational man/woman of decent intelligence could listen to experts, then say I think the mars missions is the most important to the country etc etc. Committee members listen to experts more then they are the experts.

if thats the case then like i said before you need to kick out all the poli sci, history, liberal arts majors for engineers, scientists, doctors, former military, and on and on. What do we need history for? The what happened last decade committee? I'm not saying history not important just don't see that expertise good for anything but maybe stuff about foreign relations? war? Certainly not energy. But that doesn't mean fienstien not smart enough to get the people who know that stuff in front of the committee to hear the facts.
I think the diversity of backgrounds and opinions on the committees is a good thing, and it works both ways. You don't was a group of like thinking environmental scientists or envronmental lawyers on the Energy Commitee, just like you don't want all ex energy compnay CEO's there either. Our government, IMO, by design is slow, lumbering and it is difficult to push pure idealogical policies or agenda items through- and that is a good thing. We are a nation whoe elected people to public service as they promise to do whats best for thier consituents, that often means the historian end up ont he Finance committee.... its the nature of the beast.

As for the Rep that believe in Creationism, can they be on the science committee and be productive... sure, why not?... just because they believe in the Bible, does not neccesarily mean they don't recognize that the future of good jobs globally are in the sciences and support funding for those endeavors is essential. Even if they do, the dissent in our system is welcome.

I see what you getting at OP is getting at, and in a strictly practical world you have groups of expertise, but in Government and other oversight/representative bodies like Corp Board of Governance that is not the case.
  Reply With Quote