Federal Funding of Creationism Withdrawn

| 7 Comments | 1 TrackBack

As reported by NCSE, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) has withdrawn his $100,000 earmark for anti-science education: Vitter earmark withdrawn. During yesterday’s session Vitter asked that the money in the earmark be directed to other projects, insisting that he never intended—yeah, right—for the money to go towards teaching creationism.

Joshua Rosenau of “TfK” has the full exchange on his blog.

Mr. VITTER Madam President, I rise today to discuss a project I sponsored in the fiscal year 2008 Labor, Health, Human Services and Education appropriations bill. The project, which would develop a plan to promote better science-based education in Ouachita Parish by the Louisiana Family Forum, has raised concerns among some that its intention was to mandate and push creationism within the public schools. That is clearly not and never was the intent of the project, nor would it have been its effect. However, to avoid more hysterics, I would like to move the $100,000 recommended for this project by the subcommittee when the bill goes to conference committee to another Louisiana priority project funded in this bill.

Mr. HARKIN Madam President, I appreciate the sentiments by the Senator from Louisiana and accept this proposal to move the funding for this project to other priority projects for the State of Louisiana in the bill when it goes to conference committee.

Mr. SPECTER Madam President, I concur with my colleague and will agree to move these funds in conference committee.

Congratulations to everyone who contacted their senators about this earmark. The students of Louisiana owe you a debt of gratitude. You not only got the earmark withdrawn, you also got the sponsor to do it.

Kudos all around.

1 TrackBack

As reported by NCSE, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) has withdrawn his $100,000 earmark for anti-science education: Vitter earmark withdrawn. During yesterday’s session Vitter asked that the money in the earmark be directed to other projects, insisting ... Read More

7 Comments

From Vitter: “However, to avoid more hysterics, I would like to …”

Hysterics?

I think he is actively hiding his own hysterics, as liars are wont to do.

As per Tumbleweeds by Tom K. Ryan (1974)

“Drop it, Snake-Eye! Look who I caught red-handed Judge!

Sooo!… Hang your head in shame Snake Eye McFoul, worthless wretch that you are!… Once again, the craven spawn of iniquity falls to the forces of righteousness. Behold! Virtue triumphs! Justice and Integrity prevail. Take the Blackguard away!”

Madam President, I appreciate the sentiments by the Senator from Louisiana and accept this proposal to move the funding for this project to other priority projects for the State of Louisiana in the bill when it goes to conference committee.

“Deposit slip, Please.”

Question: The $100,000+ to the anti-Evolution, christian Louisiana Family Forum was bad enough, but why should the money be available to any-ol’ Unidentified “Louisiana priority project”. If this unidentified Louisiana priority project was less important than a christian fundie group before, in reality, it can’t be very important.

M.A.:

Question: The $100,000+ to the anti-Evolution, christian Louisiana Family Forum was bad enough, but why should the money be available to any-ol’ Unidentified “Louisiana priority project”. If this unidentified Louisiana priority project was less important than a christian fundie group before, in reality, it can’t be very important.

I don’t think the project is unidentified. I think the project is to-be-determined. And one could read the statements by Vitter as indicating that the money will be split among several already agreed upon Louisiana earmarks. In other words, the $100k may be used to fatten Vitter’s other earmarks, and the exact amounts will be hashed out before the bill goes up for a vote.

Reed,

Thanks for the clairification, I had a hard time formulating my opinion, but I guess my question was: Why is that money still available, to be distributed to anybody? If a project is dropped (before or after being approved), do governmental endities normally still get the money to spend on other things that they happen to want?

“Hysteria” huh. The pressure brought to bear must have been…unpleasant. I’d love to hear the details. “Vitter, old pal, we know you don’t care about truth, but you might want to refrain from spending $100,000 of federal money on something so illegal.”

M.A.:

Thanks for the clairification, I had a hard time formulating my opinion, but I guess my question was: Why is that money still available, to be distributed to anybody? If a project is dropped (before or after being approved), do governmental endities normally still get the money to spend on other things that they happen to want?

They’re the budget people, so if they want to rewrite the budget and send the money somewhere else, they can.

Lanning:

“Vitter, old pal, we know you don’t care about truth, but you might want to refrain from spending $100,000 of federal money on something so illegal.”

I did get an email from a professor in Georgia, who got a call about 30 minutes before Vitter withdrew the earmark. The staff of Sen. Isakson (R-GA) was on the phone to tell him that the senator agreed with the professor’s email and was going to ask Vitter to withdraw the earmark.

That must have been some email!

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Reed A. Cartwright published on October 18, 2007 4:02 PM.

Science v Intelligent Design: ERV v Behe was the previous entry in this blog.

Anus Mirabilis is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter