The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    DF's picture

    Makin' the Sausage: Say That Five Times, Fast

    By DF on Thu, 05/21/2009 - 6:02pm | Politics

    I don't think that many people would be all that shocked or alarmed if I were to write that politics can be downright silly at times.  Even so, creative legislators continue to come up new tactics that seem to defy all logic.

    Now, obstruction is not a new tactic.  It's an oldie, but a goodie and a reliable stand-by for the minority party.  So, as the House Energy and Commerce Committee is working on Waxman-Markey, or the American Clean Energy and Security Act, it's not surprising that we might see some obstruction originating from the other side of the aisle.  Enter Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), the ranking Republican on the committee.

    Mr. Barton is not a big fan of science.  He has continuously displayed a disdain for science, or "so-called scientific facts" as he said just before Al Gore's testimony in 2007, especially climate science.  Here he is recently "nailing" Sec. of Energy Stephen Chu:

    Dr. Stephen Chu is a Nobel prize winning physicist.  Prior to his current appointment, he was a professor at UC Berkeley and the director of the Lawrence Berkeley Lab.  We're incredibly lucky to have someone so well versed in contemporary scientific understanding to inform our policy at the national level (thank you, Barack!).  I assure you that the uncomfortable chuckle that escaped from Mr. Chu just prior to answering Mr. Barton's question was not the result of being stumped by it.  If I had to guess, it was probably more along the lines of, "Ha, wow, I have to explain high school geology to a member of Congress."

    But I digress.

    It should come as no great surprise then that Mr. Barton is doing what he can to prevent Waxman-Markey from progressing through committee to an inevitable vote on the floor of the House.  To that end, he was prepared to force a reading of the now 946 page bill under committee rules.  To counter this tactic, Waxman had apparently retained the services of a clerk with a gift for speed reading (you know, like the guys who read the fine print at break-neck speeds during the last 3 seconds of a radio ad).  Barton was apparently prepared to capitulate, but decided to ask for a reading of an amendment so that the young man's skills wouldn't go to waste.  Here's the video:

    You want a reading?  We'll give you a reading.  And you'll still be home in time for supper.

    Oh, Congress!

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    The speed reader should've read the entire bill. At least then Mr. Waxman - one of its "authors" - would've known what was in it.

    Check out this video clip: http://www.gop.gov/conference-call/09/05/21/author-of-the-democrats

    Disturbing!

     


    by Brownie (not verified) on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 9:04am

    I'm going to assume you're probably a troll, what with being named "Brownie" and all, but I'll entertain this anyway.

    This video clip isn't disturbing at all.  No one could possibly be disturbed by it, because it has no context.  Here's the question that Barton asks Waxman in the clip:

    "Before I asked the question of Counsel did you know that was in this bill?"

    Did he know what was in the bill?  Who knows?  The clip was chopped so that we can't see what they were discussing.  Furthermore, the reason that Waxman's response is so egregious (emphasis mine):

    As Democrats push forward with a $646 billion national energy tax, Henry Waxman, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and author of the Democrats' national energy tax, has offered two startling revelations: 1. He doesn't know what is in his bill, and 2. He relies on scientists at the United Nations to help write a bill that discriminates against domestic manufacturers and domestic energy producers:

    Of course Waxman does not know everything that's in a 946 page bill.  First of all, it's not as if the opposition party hasn't introduced hundreds of amendments to it.  And in any case, there's a hell of a lot more oversight here than there was for, say, the USA PATRIOT Act, which hardly anyone read despite the fact that it altered over 100 sections of the U.S. Code.

    But Waxman's real crime here is clear: He's got the audacity to trust science.  You know, the same science that brought you the automobile in the first place.  Sure, you'll believe them when they tell you there's "internal combustion" and that it will provide safe and expedient transport to the nearest Stuckey's, but when they tell you that having so many of them on the road has become a problem, well.. certainly that can't be true.

    And as far as discriminating against domestic manufacturers goes, give me a break.  You may not have noticed, but they're on life support right now because they put all of their eggs in the SUV basket, unlike foreign manufacturers that are on the leading edge of innovation in fuel-effeciency.

    What do you have against efficiency?  I thought markets were perfectly efficient?  And that markets were an integral aspect of freedom?  And that freedom was an integral aspect of America?  Why do you hate America?

    Anyhow, heckuva job, Brownie.


    by DF on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 10:33am