Except that there's a good chance that Broun will have the opportunity to vote on the next iteration of SOPA or its successor, but a very slim chance that Broun will have the opportunity to vote on requiring biblical compliance or on whether evolution is real.

I'd say the chances that he'll have an opportunity to vote on his theocratic agenda are pretty high. The Science and Technology Committee discusses things such as stem-cell research and global warming, among other things.

In my state (Texas), I used to consider creationists an amusing sideshow, but they're now in charge, and writing their religious beliefs into textbooks. My heuristic now is that if anyone mentions "the Bible" in their election materials, run away as fast as possible, because they're likely backwards types who don't believe in a secular government. Same kinds of people who think you should get kicked out of Boy Scouts if you don't believe in God, only now they want to run the actual government, which is more dangerous.

Plus, having these medieval types in the legislature sets a bad example for American students, and embarrasses us in front of the whole world, contributing to the stereotype that Americans are uneducated: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20121006-u.s.-hous...

So you think that his vote on the Science and Technology committee is irrelevant? Currently he's chair of the investigations group investigating the EPA for conducting tests on airborne particulates with human volunteers. Chairman Broun feels that the EPA should not be conducting these tests on the groundt that the EPA believes these particulates to be dangerous, and so it's too risky for the EPA to gather evidence in support of this theory. Of course, without such evidence, there's no basis for the EPA to make policy, and the House Science and Technology committee wants to abolish the EPA anyway.

I'm sorry you're having a problem thinking this through. I personally can't get with someone who rejects most of what we know about geology and life sciences being in charge of federal funding for science. Rep. Broun is just one example among many from that particular committee, which also includes Todd Akin, who believes women can't become pregnant from rape, and Lamar Smith, author of SOPA.

Yup. I got back a very cogent, well-reasoned response from Lynn Westmoreland -- also of GA -- when I wrote to him about SOPA. He opposed it for all the right reasons and the response demonstrated that he'd actually taken time to understand the issues with the bill.

Excerpted:

>On October 26, 2011, Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX) introduced H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). According to its sponsor, this legislation seeks to "promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes." However, this bill, and its Senate companion bill, S. 968 (the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act), would also give the U.S. Attorney General (USAG) authority to seek an injunction from a federal court against domain names used by foreign websites that actively promote or distribute counterfeit goods, as well as permitting content owners to sue the intermediate service providers that support websites hosting pirated content.

>Both of these bills would give the USAG unprecedented authority to seek out court orders against foreign internet sites that have been accused of copyright infringement. This includes websites that host user-submitted content, such as the popular websites Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. These and any other websites that allow comments would now be responsible for screening any and all user activity for potential infringement. This discourages innovation in the world's most fluid industry, and the United States' economic strength is dependent on its citizen's ability to create, innovate and become entrepreneurs in various industries.

>In addition to the costs of content screening, online search engines will be forced to remove the accused website from displayed search results, online advertising companies will be forced to break contracts with accused hosts, and online payment processors will be forbidden from engaging in any further transactions with the accused host. This is all carried out without any of the due process offered in present copyright infringement cases.

>The legislation is intended to protect the consumer from fraudulent medicine, counterfeited goods, and pirated data (music, photos, movies), but is too broadly written without regard for the unintended consequences. Both of these bills stand in direct conflict with established U.S. policy of internet openness and will have little impact on actual criminal online piracy, which is the target of both pieces of legislation.

I really could not have asked for a better reply to my letter, nor did I really expect one anywhere near this good. It earned Rep. Westmoreland serious brownie points in my book.

The problem is that I disagree with him on nearly everything else. He was right this time, but was wrong on e.g. mandatory arbitration as a condition of employment for federal contractors in the wake of the KBR rape scandal.

The suggestion that I should vote for him on the basis of his SOPA position alone is missing the forest for the trees.