Page 1 of 1

Sam Clovis appointment

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 5:29 pm
by Bob78164
The White House announced the appointment of Sam Clovis, who's not a scientist, as its nominee to be Chief Scientist of the Department of Agriculture.

Just one small flaw in that plan. It appears to be illegal. By statute, the position must be filled by someone chosen "from among distinguished scientists with specialized training or significant experience in agricultural research, education, and economics." 7 U.S.C. § 6971(b). Nothing in Clovis's background appears to fit the statutory requirements. --Bob

Re: Sam Clovis appointment

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 6:20 pm
by Beebs52
I wish I had your spare time.

Re: Sam Clovis appointment

Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:26 am
by Bob78164
Beebs52 wrote:I wish I had your spare time.
There are people called reporters whose job it is to ferret out this sort of thing. Some of them are quite good at their jobs. I just read their work (and do a bit of independent research from time to time).

The bottom line is that this nomination violates the law. But I'm skeptical that the Republican Senate will let that stop them. Perhaps they'll prove me wrong. --Bob

Re: Sam Clovis appointment

Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 12:36 pm
by gsabc
Bob78164 wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:I wish I had your spare time.
There are people called reporters whose job it is to ferret out this sort of thing. Some of them are quite good at their jobs. I just read their work (and do a bit of independent research from time to time).

The bottom line is that this nomination violates the law. But I'm skeptical that the Republican Senate will let that stop them. Perhaps they'll prove me wrong. --Bob
If they don't, there are probably many agricultural scientists who will be more than happy to file a federal lawsuit to stop the nomination, or to pursue whatever methods are appropriate to do so.

Re: Sam Clovis appointment

Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 12:39 pm
by Bob78164
gsabc wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:I wish I had your spare time.
There are people called reporters whose job it is to ferret out this sort of thing. Some of them are quite good at their jobs. I just read their work (and do a bit of independent research from time to time).

The bottom line is that this nomination violates the law. But I'm skeptical that the Republican Senate will let that stop them. Perhaps they'll prove me wrong. --Bob
If they don't, there are probably many agricultural scientists who will be more than happy to file a federal lawsuit to stop the nomination, or to pursue whatever methods are appropriate to do so.
The route I think is available is for an interested party to challenge some official decision he makes on the ground that he's statutorily ineligible to hold the position. --Bob

Re: Sam Clovis appointment

Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:01 pm
by Spock
Bob78164 wrote:
gsabc wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:There are people called reporters whose job it is to ferret out this sort of thing. Some of them are quite good at their jobs. I just read their work (and do a bit of independent research from time to time).

The bottom line is that this nomination violates the law. But I'm skeptical that the Republican Senate will let that stop them. Perhaps they'll prove me wrong. --Bob
If they don't, there are probably many agricultural scientists who will be more than happy to file a federal lawsuit to stop the nomination, or to pursue whatever methods are appropriate to do so.
The route I think is available is for an interested party to challenge some official decision he makes on the ground that he's statutorily ineligible to hold the position. --Bob
Obviously, it is a job for the lawyers to quibble over, but a quick look at CNN, at least suggests that your interpretation might be open to debate.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/21/politics/ ... index.html



The Congressional language (per CNN)>>>"The Under Secretary shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, from among distinguished scientists with specialized training or significant experience in agricultural research, education, and economics," the statute reads.<<<<

Per the CNN article, at the least, he has very specialized training and significant experience in economics. He is(was) an Economics professor.

And let's not forget this facet of his experience:
>>>""Mr. Clovis spent 25 years serving in the Air Force. He retired as the Inspector General of the North American Aerospace Defense Command and the United States Space Command and was a command pilot," the White House statement read."<<<<
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Also, in the interest of comparing Apples to Apples and out of sheer curiosity, what is the resume of the person who filled this role under Obama.

Re: Sam Clovis appointment

Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:04 pm
by Spock
My post above was my thoughts after reading this-however, after thinking about this for the last hour, this came to mind

>>>>By statute, the position must be filled by someone chosen "from among distinguished scientists with specialized training or significant experience in agricultural research, education, and economics." 7 U.S.C. § 6971(b). Nothing in Clovis's background appears to fit the statutory requirements.<<<<

Unless there is other language out there-I think Bob and others might be focusing on too narrow of a definition of "Distinguished Scientist" and "Agricultural Research." I think they have visions of chemists dancing in their heads.

The "Agricultural Research" world is very broad and obviously includes biology and chemistry and so forth-but it also includes economics and sociology and so forth. Some of the most distinguished and well known scientists in agricultural research are in the economic area.

I don't see anything that precludes members of the social sciences from the position in question.

Re: Sam Clovis appointment

Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 8:14 pm
by Bob Juch
Spock wrote:My post above was my thoughts after reading this-however, after thinking about this for the last hour, this came to mind

>>>>By statute, the position must be filled by someone chosen "from among distinguished scientists with specialized training or significant experience in agricultural research, education, and economics." 7 U.S.C. § 6971(b). Nothing in Clovis's background appears to fit the statutory requirements.<<<<

Unless there is other language out there-I think Bob and others might be focusing on too narrow of a definition of "Distinguished Scientist" and "Agricultural Research." I think they have visions of chemists dancing in their heads.

The "Agricultural Research" world is very broad and obviously includes biology and chemistry and so forth-but it also includes economics and sociology and so forth. Some of the most distinguished and well known scientists in agricultural research are in the economic area.

I don't see anything that precludes members of the social sciences from the position in question.
It reads "research, education, and economics," not "research, education, or economics."

Re: Sam Clovis appointment

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 6:36 am
by Spock
Bob Juch wrote:
Spock wrote:My post above was my thoughts after reading this-however, after thinking about this for the last hour, this came to mind

>>>>By statute, the position must be filled by someone chosen "from among distinguished scientists with specialized training or significant experience in agricultural research, education, and economics." 7 U.S.C. § 6971(b). Nothing in Clovis's background appears to fit the statutory requirements.<<<<

Unless there is other language out there-I think Bob and others might be focusing on too narrow of a definition of "Distinguished Scientist" and "Agricultural Research." I think they have visions of chemists dancing in their heads.

The "Agricultural Research" world is very broad and obviously includes biology and chemistry and so forth-but it also includes economics and sociology and so forth. Some of the most distinguished and well known scientists in agricultural research are in the economic area.

I don't see anything that precludes members of the social sciences from the position in question.
It reads "research, education, and economics," not "research, education, or economics."
Your point being? How does the "And" exclude members of the social sciences?

Re: Sam Clovis appointment

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:34 am
by Bob78164
Spock wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:
Spock wrote:My post above was my thoughts after reading this-however, after thinking about this for the last hour, this came to mind

>>>>By statute, the position must be filled by someone chosen "from among distinguished scientists with specialized training or significant experience in agricultural research, education, and economics." 7 U.S.C. § 6971(b). Nothing in Clovis's background appears to fit the statutory requirements.<<<<

Unless there is other language out there-I think Bob and others might be focusing on too narrow of a definition of "Distinguished Scientist" and "Agricultural Research." I think they have visions of chemists dancing in their heads.

The "Agricultural Research" world is very broad and obviously includes biology and chemistry and so forth-but it also includes economics and sociology and so forth. Some of the most distinguished and well known scientists in agricultural research are in the economic area.

I don't see anything that precludes members of the social sciences from the position in question.
It reads "research, education, and economics," not "research, education, or economics."
Your point being? How does the "And" exclude members of the social sciences?
Nothing in his background suggests "specialized training or significant experience in agricultural research." Nor does anything in his background appear to qualify him as a "distinguished scientist." --Bob

Re: Sam Clovis appointment

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:56 am
by Bob Juch
Spock wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:
Spock wrote:My post above was my thoughts after reading this-however, after thinking about this for the last hour, this came to mind

>>>>By statute, the position must be filled by someone chosen "from among distinguished scientists with specialized training or significant experience in agricultural research, education, and economics." 7 U.S.C. § 6971(b). Nothing in Clovis's background appears to fit the statutory requirements.<<<<

Unless there is other language out there-I think Bob and others might be focusing on too narrow of a definition of "Distinguished Scientist" and "Agricultural Research." I think they have visions of chemists dancing in their heads.

The "Agricultural Research" world is very broad and obviously includes biology and chemistry and so forth-but it also includes economics and sociology and so forth. Some of the most distinguished and well known scientists in agricultural research are in the economic area.

I don't see anything that precludes members of the social sciences from the position in question.
It reads "research, education, and economics," not "research, education, or economics."
Your point being? How does the "And" exclude members of the social sciences?
"And" doesn't exclude them, but "research, education, and economics" doesn't include them.

Re: Sam Clovis appointment

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:08 pm
by Spock
Bob78164 wrote:
Spock wrote:
Bob Juch wrote: It reads "research, education, and economics," not "research, education, or economics."
Your point being? How does the "And" exclude members of the social sciences?
Nothing in his background suggests "specialized training or significant experience in agricultural research." Nor does anything in his background appear to qualify him as a "distinguished scientist." --Bob
There are 2 separate issues here and lets not mix them up..

1) Most importantly to set parameters: are Agricultural Economists and so forth, excluded from this job as a matter of course?

2) Is Sam Clovis eligible for the position?

I assume that Obama's appointee(s) set the gold standard as far as a resume fit for this position. Can you guys get their resumes so we can see a real-world example of resume perfection?

Also, Bob, I assume that you have a list of any, and all, research interests and publications that Clovis may have in his oevre. That would be nice to see also.

Re: Sam Clovis appointment

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 1:16 pm
by Bob78164
Spock wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Spock wrote:
Your point being? How does the "And" exclude members of the social sciences?
Nothing in his background suggests "specialized training or significant experience in agricultural research." Nor does anything in his background appear to qualify him as a "distinguished scientist." --Bob
There are 2 separate issues here and lets not mix them up..

1) Most importantly to set parameters: are Agricultural Economists and so forth, excluded from this job as a matter of course?

2) Is Sam Clovis eligible for the position?

I assume that Obama's appointee(s) set the gold standard as far as a resume fit for this position. Can you guys get their resumes so we can see a real-world example of resume perfection?

Also, Bob, I assume that you have a list of any, and all, research interests and publications that Clovis may have in his oevre. That would be nice to see also.
It took a little digging, but President Obama appointed Dr. Catherine Woteki to fill this role. Her research interests appeared to focus on nutrition and food safety. I haven't been able to quickly find a list of prior holders of that office. I'm relying on the account in my original link stating that all previous holders of that position have, in fact, been scientists.

As for any publications Clovis may have made before his talk-radio career, it's up to the proponents of the nomination to demonstrate that he's qualified for the job. Let them dig out the publications. If there are any. --Bob

Re: Sam Clovis appointment

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 1:18 pm
by Bob Juch
Spock wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Spock wrote:
Your point being? How does the "And" exclude members of the social sciences?
Nothing in his background suggests "specialized training or significant experience in agricultural research." Nor does anything in his background appear to qualify him as a "distinguished scientist." --Bob
There are 2 separate issues here and lets not mix them up..

1) Most importantly to set parameters: are Agricultural Economists and so forth, excluded from this job as a matter of course?

2) Is Sam Clovis eligible for the position?

I assume that Obama's appointee(s) set the gold standard as far as a resume fit for this position. Can you guys get their resumes so we can see a real-world example of resume perfection?

Also, Bob, I assume that you have a list of any, and all, research interests and publications that Clovis may have in his oevre. That would be nice to see also.
The most recent undersecretary, Catherine Woteki, had a Ph.D. in human nutrition, a bachelor of science in biology and chemistry and had served as Director of the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences.
1) Most importantly to set parameters: are Agricultural Economists and so forth, excluded from this job as a matter of course?
No, as long as they are otherwise qualified.
2) Is Sam Clovis eligible for the position?
No, his degree is in political science, and his chief claims to fame are as a conservative talk radio host and Trump’s national campaign co-chair. Just the fact that he calls climate change "junk science" is enough to disqualify him.

Re: Sam Clovis appointment

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:56 pm
by Bob78164
In an October 19 letter, Clovis admitted that he has no scientific credentials. He has now withdrawn his nomination. Not because he lacks the qualifications required by law for the job, but because he got caught up in the Special Prosecutor's probe. --Bob

Re: Sam Clovis appointment

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:01 am
by flockofseagulls104
Bob78164 wrote:In an October 19 letter, Clovis admitted that he has no scientific credentials. He has now withdrawn his nomination. Not because he lacks the qualifications required by law for the job, but because he got caught up in the Special Prosecutor's probe. --Bob
bob, if you went to this level of scrutiny of the Obama administration or Hillary Clinton's tenure in the public eye, you would have had a nervous breakdown long ago.

Re: Sam Clovis appointment

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 3:05 pm
by Bob78164
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:In an October 19 letter, Clovis admitted that he has no scientific credentials. He has now withdrawn his nomination. Not because he lacks the qualifications required by law for the job, but because he got caught up in the Special Prosecutor's probe. --Bob
bob, if you went to this level of scrutiny of the Obama administration or Hillary Clinton's tenure in the public eye, you would have had a nervous breakdown long ago.
Donny's administration is not normal. It's not remotely close to normal. There is simply no comparison to any previous Administration. Even Congressional Republicans understand that. Even if they're too craven or wedded to their positions of privilege to say so. --Bob

Re: Sam Clovis appointment

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:38 pm
by flockofseagulls104
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:In an October 19 letter, Clovis admitted that he has no scientific credentials. He has now withdrawn his nomination. Not because he lacks the qualifications required by law for the job, but because he got caught up in the Special Prosecutor's probe. --Bob
bob, if you went to this level of scrutiny of the Obama administration or Hillary Clinton's tenure in the public eye, you would have had a nervous breakdown long ago.
Donny's administration is not normal. It's not remotely close to normal. There is simply no comparison to any previous Administration. Even Congressional Republicans understand that. Even if they're too craven or wedded to their positions of privilege to say so. --Bob
There are only two things not normal about it.
1. The President does not conform to normal standards of decorum, and he can't seem to close his mouth even with his foot in it all the time. But he is nevertheless the President of the US.
2. The number of immature, vulgar, malicious and childish people like you that can't accept number 1 and don't care that they are harming the country with their hatred towards the president.

PS: Your assumed response will be that HE is harming the country. No, he is not. He is trying to implement solutions to some of the major problems that have been vexing this country for a long time, and these solutions are different than what you would do. Or what may have been done in the past. You may not agree with these solutions. I may not agree with these solutions. The solutions may or may not work. They may also have unintended consequences. But he was elected and he has the power to do this. If any entity is insane, it's our Federal Government, by definition. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. At least trump, in some areas, is trying something different, and we will see what the different results will be, good or bad.

Re: Sam Clovis appointment

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:37 pm
by silverscreenselect
flockofseagulls104 wrote:He is trying to implement solutions to some of the major problems that have been vexing this country for a long time, and these solutions are different than what you would do. Or what may have been done in the past. You may not agree with these solutions. I may not agree with these solutions. The solutions may or may not work. They may also have unintended consequences. But he was elected and he has the power to do this. If any entity is insane, it's our Federal Government, by definition. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. At least trump, in some areas, is trying something different, and we will see what the different results will be, good or bad.
Perhaps I missed it, but I'm sure you came up with a similar post when Obama tried to "implement solutions to some of the major problems that have been vexing this country for a long time."

And, by the way, sending out a few tweets here and there and giving an interview to someone at Fox News and berating the people in your own party and calling them losers while denying any responsibility for anything that hasn't worked out to his advantage may be your definition of trying to implement solutions, but it's not mine.

Re: Sam Clovis appointment

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 12:16 am
by flockofseagulls104
silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:He is trying to implement solutions to some of the major problems that have been vexing this country for a long time, and these solutions are different than what you would do. Or what may have been done in the past. You may not agree with these solutions. I may not agree with these solutions. The solutions may or may not work. They may also have unintended consequences. But he was elected and he has the power to do this. If any entity is insane, it's our Federal Government, by definition. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. At least trump, in some areas, is trying something different, and we will see what the different results will be, good or bad.
Perhaps I missed it, but I'm sure you came up with a similar post when Obama tried to "implement solutions to some of the major problems that have been vexing this country for a long time."

And, by the way, sending out a few tweets here and there and giving an interview to someone at Fox News and berating the people in your own party and calling them losers while denying any responsibility for anything that hasn't worked out to his advantage may be your definition of trying to implement solutions, but it's not mine.
I don't believe at any time I or anyone on this board, in microcosm, acted in any way like bob is acting. And there are a lot of bobs out there. They are haters. For real, not fake news haters.

Re: Sam Clovis appointment

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:32 pm
by Bob78164
flockofseagulls104 wrote:1. The President does not conform to normal standards of decorum, and he can't seem to close his mouth even with his foot in it all the time. But he is nevertheless the President of the US.
2. The number of immature, vulgar, malicious and childish people like you that can't accept number 1 and don't care that they are harming the country with their hatred towards the president.
Opposing Donny and holding him in contempt does not harm the country. It strengthens the country by reaffirming that Donny's values are not American values, and both his conduct and his values are rejected by the majority of the American people. And I defy you to demonstrate how my explicit contempt for Donny and his enablers harms the country in any way.

Donny's Administration is not normal. It's not remotely close to normal. It must never be treated as normal. "Doesn't conform to normal standards of decorum" is something one can say about Joe Biden. Donny is a liar. Donny blatantly abuses his power, as by firing the director of the FBI for investigating his Administration. Donny cannot tell the moral difference between neo-Nazis and those standing against them. And of course, Donny thinks that grabbing women by the genitals is something to brag about.

It causes me to gnash my teeth in frustration that anyone could believe for a second that any of these things are normal, or should be treated as business as usual. I won't do it. Not gonna happen. Never ever gonna happen. I've already spent more money on politics in this election cycle than I ever have before, and I fully expect to spend more, and to spend as much time as I can manage next year knocking on doors where it'll do some good. In the hope that we finally get at least one House of Congress that is willing to treat Donny the way his actions so richly deserve. --Bob

Re: Sam Clovis appointment

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 11:55 pm
by flockofseagulls104
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:1. The President does not conform to normal standards of decorum, and he can't seem to close his mouth even with his foot in it all the time. But he is nevertheless the President of the US.
2. The number of immature, vulgar, malicious and childish people like you that can't accept number 1 and don't care that they are harming the country with their hatred towards the president.
Opposing Donny and holding him in contempt does not harm the country. It strengthens the country by reaffirming that Donny's values are not American values, and both his conduct and his values are rejected by the majority of the American people. And I defy you to demonstrate how my explicit contempt for Donny and his enablers harms the country in any way.

Donny's Administration is not normal. It's not remotely close to normal. It must never be treated as normal. "Doesn't conform to normal standards of decorum" is something one can say about Joe Biden. Donny is a liar. Donny blatantly abuses his power, as by firing the director of the FBI for investigating his Administration. Donny cannot tell the moral difference between neo-Nazis and those standing against them. And of course, Donny thinks that grabbing women by the genitals is something to brag about.

It causes me to gnash my teeth in frustration that anyone could believe for a second that any of these things are normal, or should be treated as business as usual. I won't do it. Not gonna happen. Never ever gonna happen. I've already spent more money on politics in this election cycle than I ever have before, and I fully expect to spend more, and to spend as much time as I can manage next year knocking on doors where it'll do some good. In the hope that we finally get at least one House of Congress that is willing to treat Donny the way his actions so richly deserve. --Bob
Thank you for proving my point. You are an actual, real, live EXTREMIST.

Re: Sam Clovis appointment

Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2017 7:01 am
by silverscreenselect
flockofseagulls104 wrote: You are an actual, real, live EXTREMIST.
If you want to see an actual, real, live EXTREMIST, you might want to look in a mirror.

Re: Sam Clovis appointment

Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2017 7:14 pm
by AlphaDummy
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:1. The President does not conform to normal standards of decorum, and he can't seem to close his mouth even with his foot in it all the time. But he is nevertheless the President of the US.
2. The number of immature, vulgar, malicious and childish people like you that can't accept number 1 and don't care that they are harming the country with their hatred towards the president.
Opposing Donny and holding him in contempt does not harm the country. It strengthens the country by reaffirming that Donny's values are not American values, and both his conduct and his values are rejected by the majority of the American people. And I defy you to demonstrate how my explicit contempt for Donny and his enablers harms the country in any way.

Donny's Administration is not normal. It's not remotely close to normal. It must never be treated as normal. "Doesn't conform to normal standards of decorum" is something one can say about Joe Biden. Donny is a liar. Donny blatantly abuses his power, as by firing the director of the FBI for investigating his Administration. Donny cannot tell the moral difference between neo-Nazis and those standing against them. And of course, Donny thinks that grabbing women by the genitals is something to brag about.

It causes me to gnash my teeth in frustration that anyone could believe for a second that any of these things are normal, or should be treated as business as usual. I won't do it. Not gonna happen. Never ever gonna happen. I've already spent more money on politics in this election cycle than I ever have before, and I fully expect to spend more, and to spend as much time as I can manage next year knocking on doors where it'll do some good. In the hope that we finally get at least one House of Congress that is willing to treat Donny the way his actions so richly deserve. --Bob
Thank you for proving my point. You are an actual, real, live EXTREMIST.
- Speaking solely for myself here: As loathsome as I may find the situation, I accept Trump as having been duly elected by the Electoral College.

- Again, speaking for myself, I refuse to refer to Trump in the diminutive.

Other than that, I am in agreement with what Bob said as cited within this post. And if that makes me an actual, real, live EXTREMIST...then, sir, I will wear that epithet as a badge of honor.