Obama and Jindal

I'm pretty well-acquainted with FDR and his times, and this speech was quite unlike anything FDR would have said.

Mr. Obama made a big deal out of calling on us to shape up, stop being lazy, and make sacrifices to put things right. FDR never would have said anything like that.

Of course it's quite appropriate.

"Artificial...like a televangelist". The GOP seems to have lost interest in appealing to adults who value intelligence and nuance. I think Jindal was just speaking to the GOP base, like Palin does.

I thought Obama was pretty good. I agree w/ Friend, it was refreshing to hear a President actually call people out on their faults.

I listened to Bobby Jindal for approximately 30 seconds before thinking, "Good Lord, this is horrible!" and muting the volume. I really had better expectations for him.

Jindal got quite a bit better in the second half of the speech, but first impressions are most important. The second he walked out and opened his mouth half of America probably laughed out loud. He sounded like he was reading to kindergartners.

On style:

Obama has the ability to be clear without being patronizing, and he uses complete sentences rather than strung together clauses punctuated by applause breaks.

Jindal sounded like he was speaking to 4-year-olds at bedtime, and every time he breathlessly intoned "Americans can do ANYthing" I wanted to club him.

On content:

Obama made an acceptable case for government intervention, and for why the stimulus package was the right thing to do.

Jindal made an excellent case as to why the Bush administration and its allies should never be trusted with anything ever again, from his Katrina story right down to how Republicans "went along" with the corrupting influence of their K Street Project.

The only reason, the only reason, Jindal gets press and this opportunity is his skin color/background . But Asians don't vote republican, not even Asian Indians. White Americans do. Its time to start driving up that vote (McCain got a pitiful 55%, amnesty-pusher that he is) . The GOP needs a Palin or Palin-like figure to appeal to the white working class and get them to the polls. Jindal isn't it on a national level,

Obama is a very good speechmaker; it's the one thing he does really well.

The policies he presents in those speeches, however, are nothing short of disastrous. This speech tonight was much like a well-constructed box, wrapped in brightly colored paper and a cheery ribbon, containing a ripe, smelly slab of decayed, disease-ridden raw meat. Or a bunch of fragrant, tasty-smelling ripe figs, stuffed with botulism.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Yes, I like Jindal also thought that whole Katrina thing would have gone so much better if Teh Government had just let those guys with boats rescue people.

Agreed: Jindal sounded like an Eagle Scout making a speech to the Kiwanis club, and one who won the competition based on a written text, not a recording, at that. Gosh, I hope he never has a speech delivery like that again!

Obama had impeccable delivery, of course. He even sounded more reasonable than I expected much of the time... UNTIL he talked about raising the tax rate on corporations and anyone who makes more than $250,000. Way to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Most people who make more than $250K live in high cost-of-living areas where $250K is enough to pay for their mortgage, their kids' college tuition, a couple of cars and a nice vacation every year. A comfortable life, but what incentive do these people have to work harder to earn a penny more? None. Their incentive will be to cut back their work to limbo their way under the guillotine pole, and cut back their spending on vacations and restaurants and Pottery Barn accordingly (especially since they've just lost half their savings in the last year). The penny-pinching of the would-be-$250K earners will cause more people who can't afford it to be unemployed. So much for leading the way to economic recovery.

What a relief to listen to an American President who can actually speak the English language as if he feels comfortable with it. I felt hope.

Jindal, gosh, OK, Panthera say something nice. Be a nice winner not a sore winner, hmm, er, uh, well, of course, on the other hand...

Seriously, is this the best you conservatives have to offer as an alternative to us? Jindal and Malibu Barbie???! Folks, we are in serious trouble here (guess whose fault that is) and this is no time for such games.

Yikes!

Jindel - I felt sorry for him until he made misleading statements. He usually does well in TV interview. He was trying to be someone besides Bobby Jindel.

When did the Republicans "stand for universal access to affordable health care coverage?"

The following line is deceptive:

"What we oppose is universal government-run health care. Health care decisions should be made by doctors and patients, not by government bureaucrats."

Obama - Great Speech!

People that are surprised by Obama's call for accountability were not listening to him during the campaign. Obama has never been the far left liberal he was painted by one report that differed from other reports. Obama is a Democrat, but not radical.

I am not sympathetic to people making more than $250K in a time of crisis. Besides it was a campaign promise.

Obama made a couple statements that I have not heard any pundits discussing.

"In this budget, we will end education programs that don't work and end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don't need them." Being familiar with the Farm Bill and USDA programs, the pork is immense. The Farm Bill is a major vote getter for too many people in Congress.

"identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade"

Polls gave Obama high marks:

CBS Poll:

approve of President Obama’s plans for dealing with the economic crisis

After 80% Before 63%

president's economic plans will help them personally

After 51% Before 36%
Fifty-one percent of speech watchers think the president's economic plans will help them personally. Thirty-six thought so before the speech.

get a good understanding of President Obama’s economic plans
After 75% Before 58%

Interesting site:

mediacurves.com

Rod said, "But I still don't trust our government to handle this crisis."

Who do you trust? What are the options?

"...he looked and sounded like an Eagle Scout giving a speech on citizenship to the local Kiwanis."

Goodness knows, you can't get any worst that Eagle Scouts, citizenship and Kiwanis. Lord, thank goodness THAT America is almost over with, huh, Rod?

The only chance the Republicans seem to have of winning with Jindal is if enough voters die laughing from his peculiar combination of speaking skill and grasp of everyday reality.

Oh well, maybe he can get a job writing for the Atlantic, where grasping reality has never been a requirement.

K Street,

Spare us the Supply SIde clap trap. The sooner that nonsense is condemned to the ash heap of history the better we'll all be.

Great scott lets take your assumption that there is this huge population making a little more than $250K in taxable income, lets say $300K. Ok so now the $50K above the threshold will be taxed at 39% instead of 33%, so under the lower rate they pay $15,500 in taxes on it. Under the higher rate they pay $19,500.

The horror, Soviet Union here we come.

We all know Obama's got a fine hat. We've been admiring it for over a year now. Where the hell are the cattle?

Goodness knows, you can't get any worst that Eagle Scouts, citizenship and Kiwanis. Lord, thank goodness THAT America is almost over with, huh, Rod?

You completely miss the point. And I think it's probably not worth my time to explain the wisecrack to you.

Oh, Jeeze, he does sound like Fred Rogers.

They used these examples of pork - govt autos and volcano monitoring?

New cars for the government auto fleet will likely be more fuel efficient than the current ones, which will save money and help support the US auto industry.

And volcano monitoring - well, it seems to me that monitoring volcanoes is a good idea.

Quick response: Most of what I've read here and other blogs seems to focus on comparing the oratory and persuasion skills of the two speakers not the substance of the speeches. Have we forgotten how to listen critically? (not saying I'm good at it)

I for one am scared by Obama saying that there was NO pork in the trillion dollar stimulus bill and then saying he will cut the pork out of future bills. If he can't see the pork in the stimulus bill, then what hope is there that he will cut future pork?

Obama has once again made a lot of promises. The only promise I think he will fulfill is to spend mind boggling amounts of money on government programs that do not help the middle class and will bring a huge percentage of the nation down to the poverty level. This will leave a majority of people in need of government social programs and leave few in a position to help pay the taxes to support the programs.

In a nutshell... I think we are seeing a shell game.

Off-topic perhaps, but I must speak out against this horrible slandering of Mr. Rogers!! I used to mock him too, but then I read more about him, and realized that he was a truly sweet, kind-hearted man, with a deep faith that he lived out every day. He spoke simply, appropriately, and respectfully to very small children. When he was with adults, he spoke from the heart as well, but used language appropriate to adult understanding. Would that more politicians did both.

Seriously, read "The Simple Faith of Mister Rogers," a short easy book by Amy Hollingsworth. You'll be a better neighbor for at least a few minutes afterwards.

Hmm...I did not watch either of them.

I suspect that all the good intentions will leave America two steps from hell before long.

Sigh, a whole new generation of Americans will have to re-learn old lessons.

But, Jindal's message that the US needs to return to its roots of being centered on citizens and freedom rather than government and serfdom is an excellent one.

And it's boilerplate GOP rhetoric. What was painful listening to Jindal's speech is he kept referring to Louisiana "successes" at cutting taxes and taking responsibility, ignoring the fact that Louisianans have used the federal government like an ATM machine and that they were able to cut taxes because the entire state has been funded by Uncle Sam post-Katrina.

I was wondering when people were going to pull the "they made him say those things" trick out of the bag. That's what y'all said about McCain, Caribu Barbie (my apologies to Malibu, I misspoke last night) and Bush#43.

So, just to set me straight here, whenever a republican politician speaks well, he or she is a RINO. When they make an idiot of themselves, it was these evil republican spinmasters lurking behind the curtain. Right, got it. Now, about that bridge we've got on sale this week,lovely view of Brooklyn...

It wasn't a cheap shot, Athelstane, it was a genuine question. Let me rephrase it: After driving out virtually the entire conservative intelligentsia together with anyone who disagreed with Rovian tactics over the last 10 years, is there anyone left in the republican party who is capable of independent, practical thought and action? Um, senators from Maine not counted, of course...

When you compare the substance of the two speeches, Jindal and the GOP still come up short. Sure, let's say America needs to pull itself up by the bootstraps. But with what? How are entrepreneurs going to get the capital to start up new businesses if the credit markets are frozen? How will states like LA, AL, MS, FL and TX (among others) respond to natural disasters like Katrina by mantras that Americans can do anything? Is there enough benevolence in the American people to help rebuild New Orleans?

And when Jindal started talking about how the administration doesn't need to cut defense spending, I wondered, well, if Americans can do anything, perhaps we should all be building tanks in our back yards. It's good to spend money on GOP pork, I suppose.

I so desperately want a vigorous opposition in the country. It is vital for our democracy to have the appropriate checks on the party in power (and I voted for Obama and the Dems). But the GOP only can bring up the same tired ideas that were defeated the past two elections, and would have probably been defeated in 2004 had it not been for the scare mongering and the gay marriage hysteria. Rod is right: the GOP needs to look to David Cameron for some new ideas on how conservatism can work in our new economy and in our new world. 1980 is almost 30 years ago.

Panthera, haven't you heard? Michael Steele wants to drive them out of the party too. I'm seriously starting to think that we are witnessing a monumental conspiracy to infiltrate the Republican party and completely and totally destroy it from within.

Which actually would give me a little more confidence in the party currently in power.

Excellent point, Derek Copold - but that is the problem with all lockstep organizations.

Left or right.

I am not welcome in the local (small but very left) Democratic party because of a bumper sticker on my GMC: "Gun Control means using Both Hands".

Does anyone here really think I am a conservative?

The problem is more likely to occur among the left than the right, but when it does - and it has in the republican party - it is awfully hard to eradicate. Take a look at how long the Tory party has been out of power. And they actually have some pretty good ideas, today. But it took them years to even admit that people had seen through them. That's the problem here, I think.

You can't swing ever further to the know-nothing, gay-bashing right without eventually losing the Wills, Buckleys, Douthats and Noonans...Rod is clinging by his fingernails, and that only because of his fear that we will take over and force interior design and flower arranging classes on eighth graders.

I am not welcome in the local (small but very left) Democratic party because of a bumper sticker on my GMC: "Gun Control means using Both Hands".

I have that bumper sticker too. :)

Most people who make more than $250K live in high cost-of-living areas where $250K is enough to pay for their mortgage, their kids' college tuition, a couple of cars and a nice vacation every year. A comfortable life, but what incentive do these people have to work harder to earn a penny more?

I know a number of people - very well, actually - who are in this income bracket, and until the tax rate goes up to 100% (no one is proposing anything like that) there's plenty of incentive to make more. Hasn't anyone heard the Wall Streeters scream and cry that execs of bailed-out enterprises can't make more than twice that? (Oh, the poor dears!)

The idea that some marginal tax hike on income like this is going to restrain greed is laughable.

Mr. Rogers may be an unfair connection to Bobby Jindal (unfair to Fred Rogers, I mean), but another connection to TV is-- apparently Piyush Jindal gave himself the nickname Bobby after Bobby Brady from "The Brady Bunch." Mom always said, don't play ball in the house.

How will states like LA, AL, MS, FL and TX (among others) respond to natural disasters like Katrina by mantras that Americans can do anything?

Stop building flimsy crap on the coast?

Just got a scathing analysis of Jindal from my dad. He will be paying more taxes under Obama. Read K Street Catholic's comment to him, he may still be laughing. Not even Laffer still maintains that position, he said.

He added, now what would really help is for the government to award the wealthy who create real jobs in the US, not Mcjobs.

Not too dumb, my dad.

Oh, Geoff - no, I hadn't heard that. Good lord. If the republicans want to punish them, I daresay I know of a party which would welcome them with open arms. In fact, I do believe Joe Liebermann's seat on this, that or the other commitee might even be suddenly 'free', were they to be so foolish. Sweet. Let's see, now, 59 -1 + 3=??? I shall leave the answer for the class.

My humble apologies, obviously that last post was from Panthera. Not my own computer, the kitchen PC...
Good lord, do the conservatives here supporting Jindal really understand just how the majority of Americans felt about his speech last night?

Julie
The following line is deceptive:
"What we oppose is universal government-run health care. Health care decisions should be made by doctors and patients, not by government bureaucrats."

At this point Americans have figured out he actually said:
"Health care decisions should be made by unaccountable health insurance bureaucrats, not by government bureaucrats who work for elected officials and roughly have to do what the public wants or said elected officials will end up unelected."

John E. - Agn Stoic
Actually, I don't think volcano monitoring is beside the point.

A somewhat cheap government service that could, you know, save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. We'll spend a trillion dollars invading countries on a 1% chance they might threaten us (And by 1% we mean 'can hypothetically think of a way they could do it'.), but a few hundred million monitoring volcanoes, that do actually erupt and do actually kill people? Heaven forbid!

The fact this was a guy from Louisiana that just got hit with a spectacular natural disaster, and that monitoring one hurricane is probably more expensive than monitoring all volcanoes, is just icing on the cake. We monitor hurricanes from orbit with expensive satellites. We monitor volcanoes with cheap little wireless seismographs we set in and next to volcanoes.

This is aside from the inanity of decrying spending money on public works and government jobs in a stimulus bill, demonstrating that, once again, Republicans either don't understand the point of a stimulus bill or think Americans don't.

To hear the GOP talk, if a plucky neighborhood group chatting around the coffee table just put their mind to it, they could monitor volcanoes, clean up the environment, and fix health care - if only that darned Federal Government would get out of their way.

The really sad thing is that that actually worked for almost two decades, until people looked around and said 'Okay, I can't make my house payments and I'm out of work. Where's the private groups that Republicans assured me were wandering around ready to help me?'

That's the thing that gets me about 'the free market will solve anything' people. If the free market was going to solve those things, was going to monitor volcanoes, it would already do it. We wouldn't have the government showing up to solve problems because those problems wouldn't exist, or exist in microscopic amounts.

The problem with Jindal's speech isn't really with delivery, although I'll admit I didn't watch Jindal's speech, he might have been truly horrible. The problem is that America does not like the Republican Party's ideas right now. Even places like here are having trouble dealing.

I am completely in the tank for Obama, so take this for what it's worth:

Whoever Jindal tested his speech on had a tin ear. The "volcano monitoring" line was emblematic: if you want to make people disgusted with pork spending, you better use an example that is completely, unambiguously wasteful. I have no idea what "volcano monitoring" is, and maybe it is a giant waste of time and money, but my gut reaction to that was along the lines of, "Holy ***! Volcanoes!"

The Katrina anecdote was also bad. I have no doubt that's it's true on its facts, but I'm not sure what the takeaway was supposed to be. Should the government have done less? more, and better?

To add my 2 cents to what has already been said, I thought Obama was incredibly impressive, while Jindal strained credulity.

I mean, really, the Republican House members and Jindal, etc. are advocating the exact same policies they've been advocating for the past 30 years! Jeez, what a sound global economy those ideas have wrought! It seems to me that their idea of bipartisan is "if we lose big in a couple of elections, we still expect our ideas to be the dominant ones"... NOT!

We can't trust the government to do everything for us, and we sure as heck can't trust the free market. We need a lot less trust, and a lot more verification.

I'm throwing my support behind our gifted new President.

Why is it so hard for Christians to want to help people via the government. American turbocapitalism is actually antithetical to the teachings of Christ. I think he'd be appalled by all these so-called Christians professing to hate "big government." I include Mr. Dreher in this, of course.

In fact, Jesus was scathing about the rich. I'm not a Christian and I know that. The American brand of Christianity is basically warmed over Calvinism/Puritanism which basically says you're nothing if you don't have money and prestige. And--if you are poor, you are somehow a lesser person for accepting help from the government. It's a terrible ideology and supremely uncaring.

I'm a Democrat, but I'm always rooting for any political newcomers appearing on national TV; I was afraid at first that he wasn't going to give a rebuttal at all. While his life story is engaging, I thought he went a bit too long there. He also should have spelled out more specifically where Republicans and Democrats differ.

He did look over-rehearsed and nervous. I was disappointed, and felt kind of sorry for him.

I honestly felt sorry for Jindal. It was clear he had been handed a speech not of his own making, and he was doing his level best to deliver it in a genuine manner. He failed...miserably. It's hard to make GOP policy look pretty (or sound effective), but the least they could have done was give Jindal more room to put his own being into the speech. As it was, not only did the policy look bad, but so did Jindal.

Yet look back at Obama when he was faced with delivering speeches that were clearly not his own. He also became wooden, over-rehearsed, and fake.

The GOP missed an opportunity to allow one of their up-and-comers to shine on a national stage. I think the Jindal 2012 campaign pretty much ended last night.

sweet article about what 'volcano monitoring' is all about:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/govjindalfollowupwhatisvolcanomonitoring

from the article:

Volcano monitoring likely saved many lives - and significant money - in the case of the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines (where the United States has military bases), according to the USGS.

The cataclysmic eruption lasted more than 10 hours and sent a cloud of ash as high as 22 miles into the air that grew to more than 300 miles across.

The USGS spent less than $1.5 million monitoring the volcano and was able to warn of the impending eruption, which allowed authorities to evacuate residents, as well as aircraft and other equipment from U.S. bases there.

The USGS estimates that the efforts saved thousands of lives and prevented property losses of at least $250 million (considered a conservative figure).

Volcano monitoring likely saved many lives - and significant money - in the case of the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines (where the United States has military bases), according to the USGS.

HAD military bases. Having been to both Clark and Subik, I can tell you if ever there was a case for an act of a vengeful God, that would be it.

Point is, this horrible money culture that's destroying this country (and the earth) emanates (to a large degree) from Calvinism and other variants/strains of Protestantism.

And in the sexual sphere--our prudish notions about sex directly emanate from Puritanism and Catholicism.

Our culture is rotten, let's face it. That's the big picture, if you look closely enough. But the culture of greed has not been created in a vacuum.

Jindal DID sound like a televangelist for a good reason............he was peddling a message that was strictly a matter of faith and belief. No one with a grasp on the economic facts of the last 28 years would accept 85% of what Jindal was asserting as fact.

I don't recall him using Reagan's name, but he sure invoked Reagan's mantra: unfortunately, Americans are tired of electing people to government who hate government. Bush Jr. loathed government (military excepted, of course) and it showed. Even his understanding of the military was seriously flawed.

Obama is trying to be a realist, at least......it remains to be seen if he will succeed.

SjB,
God alone decides who is and who is not a Christian. Not you. God. Remember Him? He's the Father of good old what's his name,that long/haired hippie/freak of a Jewish Rabi who went around saying things like: Matthew 19:16-26. Look it up.
You are exactly the sort of Christian who drives people away from God's love. Well done! Another person thinks all Christians are hateful, spiteful, arrogant grasping people.
hippieman, I think you hit the nail on the head about what is wrong with much of US Christianity. Good for you.

The GOPs policy: Govern like it's 1982.

To Jindal's rather wrong-headed points: If we shouldn't monitor volcanos, why should we monitor hurricanes? If government has no role in medical decisions, why fight for laws limiting abortion and euthanasia?

This isn't public policy, it's not private virtue, it's simply throwing stuff out there and hoping something sticks. That is what GOP politics has devolved to, and it's pathetic.

Panthera: You are exactly the sort of Christian who drives people away from God's love. Well done!

Panthera, knock off the hectoring. It discourages discussion. Your theological point of view is far from normative, and you would do well to avoid sweeping personal dismissals of people who don't share your theological perspective. I've got quite a few friends who have been driven from your kind of Christianity and toward a more historically and theologically orthodox form of Christianity (Orthodox, Catholic, or Reformed) precisely because of your kind of liberal Christianity. Yet I don't see people here jumping down your throat accusing you personally of driving people away from God's truth.

We can argue about theology without trashing each other. In fact, we can only argue constructively about anything here if we keep personal attacks to a minimum. Please do this.

I feel sorry for Mr. Jindal. He was obviously a sacrificial lamb for a party which, right now, has nothing whatever going for it.

Not unlike Mr. McCain. As a practical matter this was his last possible year to run for the presidency (and even at that he was too old), so why not throw him under the wheels? Bush had pretty much done for the party's chances, whoever was nominated.

What can the Republicans say, really, to counter the very adept speech last night by the charismatic, highly intelligent and photogenic Mr. Obama? (The camera loves this man, and he's as happy in the limelight as a pig in mud, and it shows.) The show was for all intents over the minute he stopped speaking.

Doubtless somewhere, well under cover for the time being, there are young, vigorous Republicans with good ideas and their own sort of charismatic delivery, but they're not coming out to stand under hopeless fire, for obvious reasons. They are wisely waiting until Mr. Obama makes some mistakes.

So who do they shove out of the trench? The hapless Mr. Jindal, and, to no one's surprise, he gets mowed down.

Well, both speeches reflect the partisan reality of things.

Jindal reflects that Republicans have to start at Square One with the moderate and swing electorate. That speech was the core Republican one of appealing to a very elementary selfishness, to the selfcongratulatory individualist/anti-collective narcissism that ten year olds have.

Obama reflects that the 'higher' Republican stances are expended or discredited in the moderate and swing electorate. The Cold War militarist mindset toward the world is tired and misplaced now. The Republican resistance to domestic social democratic policies (and institutions) was based on a mix of social, political, and economic arguments, all of which likewise burned out during the Bush Presidency.

National Republicans haven't bottomed out yet, I think. But once e.g. fairly universal healthcare becomes a reality, though, they will find use again as critics of it from within. There will also be Republican opportunity in the next major phase of acrimony and violence in the continued slow shrinkage, decay, and democratization of the Soviet/Russian hegemony sphere. And there is, of course, Republican electoral profit in quietly abandoning the hopeless post-1940s Culture War issues (though, as Willis Carto demonstrated, there is a lot of easy money in championing Lost Causes) and refocussing on the post-1968 ones.

The problem, Panthera, is that you are presuming to decide what God thinks about this or that, and assuming (apparently) that that's a neutral position. You indicate that the only authoritative part of the New Testament you recognize are the Gospels, not St. Paul's letters. Surely you must recognize the eccentricity of that position, and how it gives you a very small and shaky platform from which to lecture other Christians -- that is, those who share the belief held by almost all Christians, everywhere, that God makes His will known to us in the Bible -- on what God believes.

But look, this is not a debate to have on an Obama-Jindal thread. Let's take it up sometime down the road.

"I will take your words to heart and tone down the snark on your blog. I can't stop objecting to people like SjB when they start proclaiming who is and who is not of God. That heresy lies far outside of what we both know to be Christianity."

Panthera, all SJB did was correct Hippieman (a self-proclaimed non-Christian), who had made some woefully misinformed claims about the teachings of Calvinism. ("You're nothing without money and prestige, and the poor should be ashamed for taking help?" PLEASE!) I am a Presbyterian (or "Calvinist," if you will), and I can tell you this is simply a gross representation of Reform Theology. In fact, it's almost the exact opposite. Pointing that out is in no way claiming that Hippieman is "not of God."

I'm giving up comboxes for Lent, but I really just couldn't let such a misunderstanding go by. I guess I'm phasing them out today....

stari_momak,
Appealing to white Americans is a proven loser for the GOP. Demographics are strongly against that, particularly as a long-term strategy. This is especially true if whoever the candidate is attempts to use race and class to divide. The GOP will get ever fewer Hispanic and Asian votes. They've already lost the African-American vote.

Bobby, maybe you don't have volcanoes in Louisiana, but we do have them up here in the Northwest. I live about fifty miles from one that blew up. Recently. We think it's a damn good idea that the USGS guys are monitoring our local volcanoes. It will save a lot of lives the next time a lahar (but you don't know what that is, do you, Bobby?) starts rolling down a river valley toward little burgs like Tacoma or even Seattle.

Absolutely. I was actually shocked when the volcano nonsense spewed from his mouth.

I know that playing up the "pork" and anti-intellectual, Joe the Plumber thang is the deal right now...but trying to cut natural disaster preparedness???

I may be only a geology major, aw shucks dontcha know, but I do know what a lahar is. I read about them critters in my Historical Geology, and Igneous and Metamorphic Petrology classes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahar

For some real fun, read about pyroclastic flows, and what they did to Pompei, Saint-Pierre , areas around Mt St Helens and the settlements around Krakatoa. Real fun stuff, if you like apocalyptic, end of your world, nuclear weapon going off in your neighborhood type of fun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyroclastic_flow

A pyroclastic flow (also known scientifically as a pyroclastic density current)[1] is a common and devastating result of some volcanic eruptions. The flows are fast-moving currents of hot gas and rock (collectively known as tephra), which travel away from the volcano at speeds generally as great as 450 mi/h (700 km/hr).[2] The gas can reach temperatures of about 1,000 °C (1,830 °F). The flows normally hug the ground and travel downhill, or spread laterally under gravity. Their speed depends upon the density of the current, the volcanic output rate, and the gradient of the slope.

Note: the explosion and flow from Mt St Helens was traveling at about the speed of sound. This was the last thing that was seen by legendary volcanologist Dave Johnston, who had just enough time to radio the words "Vancouver! Vancouver! This is it!", before he literally became part of the planets atmosphere. In all probability, we have all breathed a particle of him at one time or another.

Pyroclastic flows that contain a much higher proportion of gas to rock are known as 'fully dilute pyroclastic density currents' or pyroclastic surges. The lower density sometimes allows them to flow over higher topographic features such as ridges and hills. They may also contain steam, water and rock at less than 250 °C (482 °F) these are called "cold" compared with other flows, although the temperature is still lethally high. Cold pyroclastic surges can occur when the eruption is from a vent under a shallow lake or the sea. Fronts of some pyroclastic density currents are fully dilute, for example during the eruption of Montagne Pelée in 1902 a fully dilute current overwhelmed the city of Saint-Pierre and killed nearly 30,000 people.[4]...
...There is testimonial evidence from the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa[citation needed], supported by experimental evidence[citation needed], that pyroclastic flows can cross significant bodies of water; one flow reached the Sumatran coast as much as 40 kilometres (25 mi) away, having apparently moved across the water on a "cushion" of superheated steam.

A recent documentary film showed tests by a research team at Kiel University, Germany of pyroclastic flows moving over water[1]. The tests revealed that hot ash traveled over the water on a cloud of superheated steam, continuing to be a pyroclastic flow after crossing water; the heavy matter precipitated out of the flow shortly after initial contact with the water, creating a tsunami due to the precipitate mass.

"You indicate that the only authoritative part of the New Testament you recognize are the Gospels, not St. Paul's letters. Surely you must recognize the eccentricity of that position, and how it gives you a very small and shaky platform from which to lecture other Christians -- that is, those who share the belief held by almost all Christians, everywhere, that God makes His will known to us in the Bible -- on what God believes."

Rod,

Perhaps this is out of place in a Jindal thread. But.

You must have written that in anger because it's rather circular. God makes his will known in the Bible, but we can't discern what God's will is from the Gospels, from the mouth of God made flesh? I would think the Gospels are a large and unshakable platform, unless one is a Marcionite.

If, as I assume, "experts" wrote Mr. Jindal's speech (or reviewed it even!) where did this volcano stuff come from?

This is beyond stupid. What, the Republicans only want voters from the swamps? (Or not even those, maybe, if hurricane warning some under the same rubric, as logically they should.)

Well, voters from the swamps is what that speech is going to get. Alligators maybe; I'm not sure about people.

Hello Panthera,

"It wasn't a cheap shot, Athelstane, it was a genuine question. Let me rephrase it: After driving out virtually the entire conservative intelligentsia together with anyone who disagreed with Rovian tactics over the last 10 years, is there anyone left in the republican party who is capable of independent, practical thought and action? Um, senators from Maine not counted, of course..."

In some ways it was worse than a cheap shot. Your implicit assumption is that "conservative" equals "incapable of independent thought."

No one will confuse either of the Maine senators - whatever their virtues - with "conservative."

How you're going to stick Bobby Jindal - Rhodes Scholarship recipient, University system president - with mindless yokel is going to be quite a feat. if Jindal is not smart enough, educated enough, thoughtful enough - whatever his virtues or flaws - then I sure as hell would like to know who is.

Believe it or not, Rush Limbaugh does not monopolize the discussion among conservatives - and I do mean conservatives. You might try reading Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, for starters. You might also look at what Bobby Jindal has actually advocated and done in his career.

While everyone is intensely focused on the value of volcano monitoring after a throw away line intended to lambast "erupting federal spending" rather than lambasting disaster preparedness, I think it might be useful to also focus on a non-throw away line from our elagent president. He promised (let me be perfectly clear) that foreclosure bailouts will not reward any irresponsible mortgage holders. None. Does anyone here really think that is at all realistic? The relative responsibility of a few million private citizens will be monitored by a few hundred government employees who will determine if they deserve a bailout or if they acted in poor faith. This is an actual promise from our president rather than a rhetorical flourish from the response of the minority party.

Anyone care to defend that?

Marc, I can't find that statement in Mr. Obama's speech. Can you give us a direct quote from the transcript?

"Believe it or not, Rush Limbaugh does not monopolize the discussion among conservatives - and I do mean conservatives. You might try reading Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, for starters."

Try this experiment. Ask conservatives you know if they have ever heard of Douthat or Salam. At least where I live and work, no one has heard of them. They all know Hannity and Limbaugh and Beck. Listen to current Republican pols and tell me who you think they are listening to? If people like Douthat, Salam, Joyner and Larison, just to name a few ever become more influential in the party, I may vote Republican again sooner rather than later.

Steve

"Jesus taught it was the 'LOVE of money' that was the problem not wealth itself."

Actually, it was St. Paul who said "The love of money is the root of
all evil". not Jesus. (1 Timothy 6:10)

"Leading up to the speech, Jindal insisted that he was writing most of it."

Then allow me to revise and extend my earlier remarks: the Jindal 2012 campaign DEFINITELY ended with that speech.

eric k,

Your math is way, way off.

A person making $300k/year at the 33% tax bracket pays $100k in FEDERAL income taxes. At 39%, it's $117k. The difference is a new car financed over only 12 months. Or put this way, an entire year's wages for an Oregonian working at minimum wage ($8.40/hr). So instead of hiring a maid, they pay it all in taxes, so about half of it can go to 1/4th of one new government employee's salary.

At $250k, 33% is $82,500 in FEDERAL income taxes. 39% is $97,500.

You can't have it both ways: Either 1) so few people will be affected by a significant tax increase significant enough to put into law that will tip the balance, or 2) significant numbers of people will be affected by a whoop-dee-doo tax increase, thus tipping the balance.

If, as you say, few people will be affected, and only very little, then what's the point of levying the higher taxes in the first place?

I thought the GOP did the best at inane populism like that. Why would the Dems want to compete for THAT market share?

Of course, I don't think the increase will tip the balance. Wealthier people can afford to have a sandwich when they should be paying their taxes. They can shelter and wait. Obama's own Admin picks proved that.

Spain's MAXIMUM income tax bracket is 39%. And they get national healthcare. The problem with levying higher taxes on the rich here is that it gets fewer of them to honestly pay what they owe. It increases the incentive to dodge and fudge. So the middle class - who can't afford the lawyers and the dodges - and the few principled, honest wealthier taxpayers end up carrying ALL of the burden.

And what frustrates me so much is the competely unrealistic idea that we can always afford to expand government because we can print the money and fall further into consequenceless debt. Or take it out of the rich (who, again, can afford to dodge the taxes anyway).

The size, scope, and all the centrally-located power and money controlled by so few grew to unprecedented degrees under Bush. And it'll grow more under Obama. And because of that, it's highly unlikely we'll see sustainable growth, prospertiy, and recovery in the near-to-medium term.

There are legitimate - not GOP boilerplate - reasons to oppose the proposed tax hike. Don't fall into the tu quoque trap by discrediting the idea just because the person espoused to it isn't credible.

A person making $300k/year at the 33% tax bracket pays $100k in FEDERAL income taxes. At 39%, it's $117k

Is there anyone who understands our income tax system in the house? Or anyone literate even?

The 33% rate is the marginal rate: the rate at which every income dollar over x dollars is taxed. (I'm too lazy to get up and go look up the actual tax tables.) This does NOT mean that someone making $300,000 a year has his or her entire income taxed at 33%.

Jude--please look up "marginal tax rates" before you criticize someone else's math. The 39% rate would apply to the upper say $50,000, not the entire $300,000.

Wow...yes... Boy is my face red! Thanks for pointing out what I missed.

The tax hike isn't probably that big of a deal monetarily. Thing is, that kind of tax hike (considering everyone paid theirs in full) would only add about, what, $30B annually to our coffers? Unless I'm missing something.

The way bailout funds are being handed out in the trillions now, I don't see how a tax hike like that is going to help much of anything. The interest alone on this stimulus will be 10x what could possibly be collected annually by the proposed income tax rise.

And just how is the Obama admin going to make sure that those being taxed higher will pay everything they owe? How effectual is this really going to be?

Well, that didn't display as well as it looked. Sorry about that, and also for my pre-coffee mistake of labeling that 1988. It was for 2008.

;-)

Allowing the tax cuts to expire. "Them" referred to the tax cuts, not to the wealthiest Americans.

This is where Bobby Jindal got his talking point from:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0cpjhTRO28