The House science committee is worse than the Benghazi committee

[applegrove]

The House science committee is worse than the Benghazi committee

by David Roberts at Vox

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/9616370/science-committee-worse-benghazi-committee

"SNIP.............


The science committee's modus operandi is similar to the Benghazi committee's — sweeping, catchall investigations, with no specific allegations of wrongdoing or clear rationale, searching through private documents for out-of-context bits and pieces to leak to the press, hoping to gain short-term political advantage — but it stands to do more lasting long-term damage.

In both cases, the investigations have continued long after all questions have been answered. (There were half a dozen probes into Benghazi before this one.) In both cases, the chair has drifted from inquiry to inquisition. But with Benghazi, the only threat is to the reputation of Hillary Clinton, who has the resources to defend herself. With the science committee, it is working scientists being intimidated, who often do not have the resources to defend themselves, and the threat is to the integrity of the scientific process in the US. It won't take much for scientists to get the message that research into politically contested topics is more hassle than it's worth.

This year, Smith was one of the committee chairs granted sweeping new subpoena powers by his fellow House Republicans, what one staffer called "exporting the Issa model." No longer is the chair required to consult with the ranking member before launching investigations or issuing subpoenas. A spokesperson for Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, "This change will inevitably [lead] to widespread abuses of power as Republicans infect the other committees with the poisonous process that Issa has so abused during his chairmanship."

That turned out to be pretty prescient, at least in the case of the science committee. No chair has taken to his new role with as much enthusiasm as Smith. Here are just three of his recent exploits.



............SNIP"

[randys1]

1. Imagine what they will do when President Rubio takes over.

But I have been assured there is simply no difference, no important difference between Hillary and the cons, so no biggie I guess.

[applegrove]

2. I know. I was devastated when Bernie supporters en masse said they would not support Hillary

Last edited Wed Oct 28, 2015, 07:11 PM - Edit history (1)

if she won the nomination.

[KamaAina]

4. When was this?

Bernie supporters en mass said they would not support Hillary

And as a resident of a bilingual metropolis, you should have gotten en masse right, eh?

[applegrove]

6. I'm a bad speller. Will fix it. I posted two threads asking people to pledge

to vote for the nominee. Many Sanders supporters said they would refuse to support Hillary if she won the nomination. I will look for them.

Here is the second one. Results were a little better than the first OP I did. The first one is long gone.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251628572

[enough]

3. Totally agree. This has the potential to do huge damage.

Thanks for posting. This threat needs to get as much coverage as possible.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. if they could burn evolutionary biologists and climate scientists at the stake for blasphemy

They probably would.

"You have been found guilty of defaming the name of our lord Jesus Exxon Christ and the truth that he created this earth 6,000 years ago for the express purpose of maximizing petroleum shareholder value"