![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
my party, right and wrong
Oct. 7th, 2012 10:30 pmCongressman calls evolution lie from 'pit of hell'
nor does it really surprise me that this loon is on that committee; there was a fair amount of coverage in science that such things were part of the GOP's grand plan last congressional elections.
but i have been thinking about this story since it ran. question: should we do anything about this guy (or the equivalent loons on the left)? and if so, what and why?
the trivial answer is "no, he represents a loony district, and they're entitled to their loon."
a slightly less trivial answer is "maybe; let's see if his district has been gerrymandered above and beyond the call of duty -- that is, he's not representing 'the people' but 'his cherrypicked people' -- and if so, adjust that the next census, say by amending the state constitution.". a little checking confirms that georgia has had little problems with the voting rights act, so perhaps a bigger hammer is needed.
otoh, one of the problems with the trivial answer is the all-too-common observation, "congress is a wreck, but it's not my congressman's fault, he's great!". this sounds like some sort of tragedy of the commons: we've broken a fine public good by asserting our own interests too strongly, which suggests the need for accepted collective rules on how we act.
i'm curious what ideas people might have for collective rules since i don't have any good ones. (or alternatively, vigorous defenses of the thesis that the status quo is fine.)
i do have what i suspect is a bad idea, but i haven't thought it through: the "toss the bums out" amendment. specifically, every off year, we hold a vote on the performance of congress. if some suitable supermajority votes for "toss the bums!", no current member of the house can run in the next congressional election. (this does nothing about the senate, but because of its greater powers and responsibilities, i'm less willing to have it run by a bunch of newbies.)
by design, i don't intend "toss the bums" to win very often; i'm hoping for once or twice a century. it's also admittedly a very crude tool to wield: it's a brute-force veto over all local decisions, good and bad.
still, it does match the apparent rhetoric, and the effect of voting for tossing the bums is easy to understand, even if its consequences aren't. if it works as desired, it should restrain individual and collective excesses on the part of the house. shut down the federal government in a fit of pique? "hey, we could get fired for that!" put people with loony ideas in positions of greater power? "hey, we could get fired for that!". it's not government by consensus -- which has its own problems -- but it may help along those lines... assuming that's what we want.
ATHENS, Ga. (AP) — Georgia Rep. Paul Broun said in videotaped remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell" meant to convince people that they do not need a savior.gee, i guess i never knew that that was the reason that acceptance of scientific truths was now official doctrine of most christian denominations.
...
"God's word is true," Broun said, according to a video posted on the church's website. "I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior."
...
Broun spokeswoman Meredith Griffanti told the Athens Banner-Herald (http://bit.ly/Us4O0Z ) that Broun was recorded speaking off-the-record to a church group about his religious beliefs. He sits on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
...
nor does it really surprise me that this loon is on that committee; there was a fair amount of coverage in science that such things were part of the GOP's grand plan last congressional elections.
but i have been thinking about this story since it ran. question: should we do anything about this guy (or the equivalent loons on the left)? and if so, what and why?
the trivial answer is "no, he represents a loony district, and they're entitled to their loon."
a slightly less trivial answer is "maybe; let's see if his district has been gerrymandered above and beyond the call of duty -- that is, he's not representing 'the people' but 'his cherrypicked people' -- and if so, adjust that the next census, say by amending the state constitution.". a little checking confirms that georgia has had little problems with the voting rights act, so perhaps a bigger hammer is needed.
otoh, one of the problems with the trivial answer is the all-too-common observation, "congress is a wreck, but it's not my congressman's fault, he's great!". this sounds like some sort of tragedy of the commons: we've broken a fine public good by asserting our own interests too strongly, which suggests the need for accepted collective rules on how we act.
i'm curious what ideas people might have for collective rules since i don't have any good ones. (or alternatively, vigorous defenses of the thesis that the status quo is fine.)
i do have what i suspect is a bad idea, but i haven't thought it through: the "toss the bums out" amendment. specifically, every off year, we hold a vote on the performance of congress. if some suitable supermajority votes for "toss the bums!", no current member of the house can run in the next congressional election. (this does nothing about the senate, but because of its greater powers and responsibilities, i'm less willing to have it run by a bunch of newbies.)
by design, i don't intend "toss the bums" to win very often; i'm hoping for once or twice a century. it's also admittedly a very crude tool to wield: it's a brute-force veto over all local decisions, good and bad.
still, it does match the apparent rhetoric, and the effect of voting for tossing the bums is easy to understand, even if its consequences aren't. if it works as desired, it should restrain individual and collective excesses on the part of the house. shut down the federal government in a fit of pique? "hey, we could get fired for that!" put people with loony ideas in positions of greater power? "hey, we could get fired for that!". it's not government by consensus -- which has its own problems -- but it may help along those lines... assuming that's what we want.