Call me a pessimist. When I see guys like Akin and Broun on a science committee, I assume that it didn't happen by accident, and that they probably have an axe to grind. At best, they may be looking to have their ethics represented on subjects like the ethics or morality of subjects like stem-cell research.
It's not an accident. It is exactly what tptacek described. Every other smarter/better representative wanted, and got committees which pay them more. And that forced these losers to end up on the science committee.
No accident, but also no "axe grinding" conspiracy. Just simply money.
I don't. I don't give a damn about karma. This is like my 3rd HN account. Not that I had any reason to create new accounts, besides logged out for some reason and didn't remember credentials.
Now watch everyone else in horror down-vote this, and for someone to post the link to the HN change your password page.
That key bit of information puts the article in a completely different light. Without this information it is not unreasonable to interpret it as an anti-science stance from the Republicans. Ars Technica's reporting is usually excellent, but this is a serious omission.
Some committees collect members that senior leadership do not want on other, more important, committees. You can pretty much tell how low that committee is by the amount of vacant seats. It sounds important to us, but as tptacek points out, much business in this area is handled elsewhere.
<pedantry>
You're confusing pessimism with cynicism.
Pessimism is about what is going to happen; like its opposite, it deals entirely in possible futures. A pessimist can say, "Call me a pessimist, but Akin is going to join the Science committee because he's got an axe to grind." Or "Call me an optimist, but Akin was false flagging all this time and when he joins the Science committee, he'll do great things on behalf of science."
