Can You Be an Atheist and a Conservative?

Via Andrew Sullivan, John Derbyshire answers in the affirmative:

There are many people like us: people who cherish limited government, fiscal restraint, personal liberty, free enterprise, self-support, patriotic defense of the homeland and its borders, love of the Constitution, respect for established ways of doing things, pride in Western Civilization, etc., and yet who cannot swallow stories about the Sky Father and the Afterlife, miraculous births and revivifications. What does the one set of things have to do with the other? We are secular conservatives. What else are we? Figments of our own imaginations?

Sullivan comments that there's no conceptual reason why secularism and conservatism couldn't go together, but points out that in America conservatism and religion have become more and more entwined over the years, to the point where Christianity is very nearly an integral part of the Republican party.

I smiled at one value Derbyshire lists: respect for established ways of doing things. Why necessarily respect a way of doing things simply because it's been done that way for a long time? Either it's a useful, sensible law/method, or it's an inferior one. "We've always done it this way" isn't a good argument for continuing to do it that way, especially if the world around you is changing. But that sort of unquestioning respect for ideas based on longevity is very much in line with religious thinking. Derbyshire asks what these values have to do with religion, and there's his answer.

What If...?

Marvel Comics had a series called "What If...?" where it explored such fascinating hypotheticals as:

So how about a little "What If...?" with the McCain campaign. What if...Kay Bailey Hutchison had been chosen as McCain's running mate, instead of Sarah Palin?

She's a popular female Senator from a Southern state. She's intelligent, articulate, and unlike Sarah Palin, probably knows that Africa is a continent, not a country. She would have appealed to many more moderates and female voters. But alas, she's pro-choice. Would this have alienated the Republican base, or would they still have come out to vote?

We'll never know. I'm still not sure he would have won, but I think it probably would have made the race much closer.

Guilt By Association

Many Democrats are drooling over this bit by Keith Olbermann in which he plays a clip in which a guest on Hannity's show "skewers" him.



I'm sorry, but this is just dumb. The guest, Robert Gibbs, is trying to say that charging guilt by association is inherently wrongheaded by equating a working relationship or friendship with a reporter/interviewee relationship. That's dumb.

I'm not saying that the Obama/Ayers story has legs. It's a dumb smear. But the way to argue against it is not to say "Well as a reporter you interviewed an anti-Semite, so that must make you one too."

Because here's the thing...sometimes guilt by association is a legitimate criticism. If a politician were best friends with a Grand Wizard of the KKK, played golf with him every Sunday and ate dinner at his house every Thursday, that would say something about him, wouldn't it? It is perfectly legitimate to assess someone's judgment and character based on their ties and associations with others.

But a politician necessarily works with a lot of different people in a lot of different contexts. It would be utterly surprising if Obama hadn't worked with seedy people, especially having been a politician in Chicago. The real question is the extent to which he had a relationship with Ayers and either agreed or disavowed his views and actions. And on that count, the link looks pretty flimsy.

But there is a huge qualitative difference between collaborating with someone in some capacity and interviewing them, which makes it a stupid, distracting argument.

Biden/Palin Debate

It was disappointing from an entertainment point of view. I expected a bloodbath, and at least half a dozen awkward moments as Sarah Palin stared open-mouthed at the moderator, trying to figure out what to say.

But Palin did far better than I or anyone else probably expected. It's hard to reconcile the Palin from last night with the one from the Gibson and Couric interviews. Maybe she's a good study, and when she prepares she does well, and maybe she just didn't prep for the interviews. Or maybe she has some sort of phobia regarding reporters that makes her brain freeze up. Anyway, she did a good job, and most Republicans will probably breathe a sigh of relief, convince themselves that the VP slot isn't that important anyway, and cast their vote. But I don't think the performance was enough to undo the damage of the last two weeks, and probably won't sway independents or undecideds in any significant way, which is what McCain really needs.

Biden was good too, but I didn't think he was nearly as sharp as he was in the primary debates, where he managed to seem honest and down-to-earth and less of a politician than the others on-stage.

The First Presidential Debate of 2008

You can watch it here at Hulu if you haven't seen it.

I suppose it went about like I expected. There weren't a lot of fireworks, and it was a reasonably sober discussion of the economy and foreign affairs. McCain used a lot of his old, tired lines ("We came to here to change Washington, but Washington changed us", "I didn't win Miss Congeniality", "Sen. Obama wants to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory"). You could tell that his strategy was to talk down to Obama and try to expose him as ignorant and ill-experienced. I don't know how many times he used the phrase "Sen. Obama doesn't understand...", but it was at least 4 or 5. But Obama wasn't having any of that, and he seemed confident and presidential as he described his stances.

On the financial side, I thought Obama's position made a lot more sense, saying that he'd have to postpone some of planned programs, but that no one would know what the budget would be like next year, so it was premature to talk about specific cuts. McCain at one point said he'd "veto everything that came across his desk", which seems not only extreme, but silly. There might actually be a decent piece of legislation that comes across his desk in the next year. But what he said probably appealed to people more than Obama's response.

Obama backpeddled on a lot of things that he said in the primary campaigns, and justifiably so. I'm fairly satisfied that he's intelligent enough to know that he made some rhetorical mistakes early on and that he's learned his lesson. I disagree with his position on Iraq, but I honestly don't think he's going to have a dramatically different policy from McCain. I like that he recognizes that Pakistan and Afghanistan are of primary importance right now.

McCain seemed the less genuine of the two, but he still did a decent job, I thought. Obama didn't hit a home run, but he was solid as well. I'd give McCain a B and Obama a B+.

One thing I thought was interesting was how neither the moderator nor Obama pointed out that McCain nearly didn't even show up for this debate. Obama could have taken a dig at McCain for threatening to skip the debate, but he didn't, probably realizing that he didn't actually need to say anything.

I'll watch all the debates, but I don't see being swayed much by them unless something really unexpected and dramatic happens in one of them. I really am looking forward to the vice presidential debate. Biden was barely given a chance to talk in the primary debates, which were the Obama/Hillary show, but he'll have equal time here. I wondered if going on the attack might backfire, but I think most people will be of the opinion that Palin is running for the 2nd most powerful job in the world, and if she can't take some heat, she shouldn't be in that spot. So I'd expect Biden to tear into her. Historically, VPs are attack dogs, doing a lot of the dirty work while the presidential candidate takes the high road. We'll see what happens, but I'm really looking forward to it next Thursday.

McCain Cancels Letterman to Save the Economy

You've probably heard by now that McCain wants to suspend the campaign in order to focus on the humongous government bailout of the horribly mismanaged financial industry. He wants to push the debates back...not only the one for the presidential candidates, but also the one for the VP candidates. Gee, I wonder why.

Anyway, he was supposed to appear on David Letterman, but canceled at the last minute so he could race back to DC to orchestrate giving $700 billion to people who have magnificently demonstrated their inability to properly manage money.

Here's Dave going on and on about it:



Dave's not happy.

Look, there was a time when I actually liked and admired John McCain. I would easily have voted for him if he'd won the primaries in 2000. I came into this election season thinking that either of these two candidates would be fine leaders for the country.

But I honestly think McCain is in free fall right now. The Palin pick looks worse and worse, and this latest stunt is simply ridiculous. As Obama pointed out in response to McCain's suggestion that they both suspend their campaigns to deal with the economic crisis...a president has to be able to multitask, and now is a crucial time to hear what the people who want to take over leadership of this country have to say about how to fix problems exactly like this one.

I haven't seen any poll reactions to this crap, but I'll be sorely disappointed if this doesn't make up some of the minds of people who said they were undecided.

The first presidential debate was supposed to be tomorrow night in Oxford, Mississippi. I'd actually support a proposal to give the full time to Obama to lay out his proposals and answer questions for the full duration, if McCain is unwilling to show up.

Where are Governors Supposed to Get Foreign Policy Experience?

Just to reiterate, I'm heavily leaning toward Obama/Biden this November, and I'll be voting for that ticket unless something very strange happens between now and then.

But I also feel compelled to criticize candidates for things they should actually be criticized for, rather than silly pseudo-arguments against them. And one of those is Sarah Palin's lack of foreign policy experience. I've heard jokingly that Cindy McCain and/or Laura Bush has noted the fact that she can see Russia from Alaska is foreign policy experience, though I'm not sure how serious this was, and I definitely haven't heard it from her.

The point is, how in the hell was she supposed to get foreign policy experience as Governor of Alaska? If we used that as a yardstick for being elected to either the Presidency or Vice Presidency, then we would never elect Governors. But we seem to like electing Governors...Reagan was Governor of California, Clinton of Arkansas, and Bush of Texas. Exactly what foreign policy experience did they build up while serving as Governor of their respective states? You could possibly argue that Reagan and Bush had to deal closely with Mexico, for trade and immigration issues, but that's pretty weak gruel. And if that's the case, then Bill Clinton's foreign policy experience was even thinner.

By all means, criticize her for flipping on her support of pork-barrel spending in her state, her lack of knowledge about particular issues, and her medieval stances on social issues. But criticizing her for lack of foreign policy experience is lame and hypocritical.

The Art of Negative Campaigning

John McCain basically lost the Republican primary to George W. Bush because he was the subject of a torrent of half-truths and smears, masterminded by Karl Rove. So it's somewhat natural that McCain would realize he has to wade into the sewers and really learn how to sling shit in order to win the biggest office there is.

But now even Karl Rove is saying McCain has gone too far. Yeah? What ad could be so despicable that even Karl Rove would say, "Hmm...wait a minute.."?

This one:

Here are the facts:

• The bill allowed for parents to opt their children out of such classes, no questions asked
  
• He didn't sponsor the bill
  
• He did vote for the bill, but it didn't pass
  
• The bill included education for kindergartners to learn how to identify avoid unwanted sexual contact from sexual predators
  

Yes, now I can see why even Rove would wince at such a distortion. I'm not sure it's a moral issue, though. With Rove it's still probably a matter of strategy. The ad was so overt in its distortions that it will potentially backfire.

After being on the receiving end of such a brutal negative campaign in 2000, I expected McCain to ramp up the mudslinging. However, he seems to have taken sleaze to an entirely new level.

The Bush Doctrine

I'm less than impressed with what I've seen of Sarah Palin so far, but I do have to defend her somewhat against this particular charge. Here's the panel of Bill Maher's latest show, with everyone but the token Republican slamming the hell out of her for not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is:



Now then, do any of you know what the Bush Doctrine is? Maher and Garafelo act like it's patently obvious what it is to anyone who reads the newspapers. Here's the first paragraph of Wikipedia's entry on the Bush Doctrine:

The Bush Doctrine is a term used to describe the foreign policy doctrine of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. It may be viewed as a set of several related foreign policy principles, including stress on ending terrorism, spreading democracy, increased unilateralism in foreign policy and an expanded view of American national security interests. Foreign policy experts argue over the meaning of the term "Bush Doctrine," and some scholars have suggested that there is no one unified theory underlying Bush's foreign policy. Jacob Weisberg identifies six successive "Bush Doctrines" in his book The Bush Tragedy, while former Bush staffer Peter D. Feaver has counted seven. Other foreign policy experts have taken the term to mean Bush's doctrine of preventive war, first articulated in 2002, which holds that the United States government should depose foreign regimes that represent a threat to the security of the United States, even if such threats are not immediate and no attack is imminent. This policy was used to justify the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

(emphasis mine)

Palin was asked if she agreed with the Bush Doctrine. According to this article, there is no universal agreement on what the Bush Doctrine actually is. Garafelo says that it refers to the use of preemptive force, but as the article points out, it could refer to increased unilateralism. Basically it's a crappy question. If she asks a clarifying question, she looks stupid. A better question would have been more specific, e.g. "Do you agree with Bush's approach to foreign policy?" If Gibson had wanted to ask her opinion of specific aspects of Bush's foreign policy, he could ask those, e.g. "Do you agree with the use of preemptive force?" Or "Do you think that the US should sometime act without or against the will of the international community?"

I agree with Maher that in general she did look like someone who had been cramming for an exam, and that she didn't do a very good job in the interview. Gibson did a pretty good job of asking reasonably tough initial questions...not so much with the follow-up. I think she'd get slaughtered on Meet the Press, and it will be interesting to see the extent to which she makes herself available for interviews over the next two months, or whether they just roll her out for speeches and luncheons and otherwise hide her in a bunker until election day.

Why Do People Vote Democrat?

Jonathan Haidt is at it again over at Edge. He asks: "What makes people vote Republican?" in the way that an entomologist might ask "Why do some species of ticks eat the genitals of their mates?" He implies that voting Democrat is the obviously superior and rational choice, so we need to really delve into why anyone in their right mind would ever vote for a Republican. Here's a taste:

What makes people vote Republican? Why in particular do working class and rural Americans usually vote for pro-business Republicans when their economic interests would seem better served by Democratic policies? We psychologists have been examining the origins of ideology ever since Hitler sent us Germany's best psychologists, and we long ago reported that strict parenting and a variety of personal insecurities work together to turn people against liberalism, diversity, and progress. But now that we can map the brains, genes, and unconscious attitudes of conservatives, we have refined our diagnosis: conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death. People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity"—a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world.

So basically, people vote Republican because they're genetically predisposed to like dictatorial leadership styles. Got it.

If you read the whole thing (which honestly isn't worth it), you can see Haidt bending over backwards to pay lip service to objectivity. But the article is dripping with innuendo and condescension of conservatives.

Having actually voted for Republicans at various times in the past, I can tell you why I did it, and it wasn't because I have an inherited love of authoritarianism. The Republican party has substantial overlap with Libertarians when it comes to certain issues, namely taxes, spending, and certain rights issues, such as gun control. This is why Ron Paul is in the Republican party. Not all Republicans actually follow the precepts of smaller government, more local control, and lower taxes, but that's the platform. Is a working class voter a reflexive idiot for thinking such policies might actually benefit him/her more than Democratic economic policy?

Yet when it comes to issues like freedom of religion, reproductive education and rights, tolerance for alternative lifestyles, and so on, the Republicans are more intrusive and less libertarian than the Democrats. That's why I can't just saddle up with either side. There's too much I don't like about both parties.

But back to Haidt...his approach is lame and insulting. One could just as easily write an article which drips with the same condescension for Democrats. E.g.:

Why do people vote for tax-and-spend Democrats when fiscally conservative, pro-business policies would seem to better serve their interests? Psychological studies show that Democratic supporters show a greater affinity for the soft, permissive parenting of their mothers, rather than the strength of their fathers. In a world full of insecurity in the face of rogue nations and distributed terrorist threats, why would anyone choose soft and nurturing over powerful and determined, unless they held a genetic predisposition for the desire to be cuddled and coddled.

Gosh, do you think Democrats would be as insulted by such a passage as Republicans would be by Haidt's? Hmmm?

Political Conventions

I caught a little of Sarah Palin's speech from last night. She did well, but then, it's not that hard to perform well on your home turf with thousands of your own cheerleaders.

I'm not a big fan of political conventions anyway. They're red meat for the party's base, and I'm not strongly affiliated with either of the major parties.

I want to see some debates. I know they're also somewhat contrived (what isn't, in a political race?). But they allow you to do window shopping with the choices side by side, and if the moderator and questions are halfway decent, you actually get some glimmer of insight into what the candidate is really like, or at least how they'll perform when someone is tearing into them under the spotlight.

I expect Obama and McCain to essentially ignore each other in the debates and stick to their talking points. Obama will probably float up on a little cloud talking about how he wants to make everything wonderful (I'm especially interested in how he handles questions about raising taxes, though...probably by deflecting with an answer about how Bush has put through tax cuts for the rich), while McCain seems more and more like a tortoise...slow and steady with a thick shell. I thought he looked limpid next to the other Republican candidates in the primary debates, but apparently the strategy worked.

I don't expect Biden and Palin to ignore each other. On the contrary, I think (and kind of hope) they'll go for each other's jugulars. If so, those will be fun debates to watch.

I still haven't completely made up my mind on who to vote for, though at this point I'm about 75% toward Obama. The political cheerleading of the conventions isn't going to push me one way or the other, though.

Obama on Faith

When I wrote my review of Barack Obama's The Audacity of Hope, I hadn't yet gotten to the chapter on faith. Well, now I have read it, and I'm not particularly impressed.

Obama apparently grew up in a secular household, but converted to Christianity in his mid-20s. His reasons for adopting Christianity are patently utilitarian. He talks about the effectiveness of black churches in organizing blacks, improving neighborhoods, effecting social change, and instilling morals in the community. He talks about how his mother died after a long fight with cancer and how he saw fear in her eyes, and wished that she had religion to comfort her. And he talks about when his own young daughter asked him about death for the first time, and he told her something like "You don't have to worry about that for a long time." This skirted the question, but he says in his book that he hopes that his mother has gone to a better place where she can be with people she can talk to and love for all eternity.


Okay. But your desire to believe something that makes you happy certainly doesn't make it true. Obama also talks about how religious people shouldn't leave reason at the door, but as far as I can tell, he doesn't give a single justification for his beliefs based on reason.

I've talked here many times about the fallacy of utilitarianism. You could believe all sorts of things that are false that could make you happier and more productive. In the end what matters is your values. If you really do value truth more than happiness, then you'd never accept a pleasant fantasy over cold, hard reality. But if you value happiness more than truth, you'd certainly be willing to buy whatever someone's selling as long as it made you that much happier.

Obama at least speaks inclusively about non-believers, and he talks about the dangers of using the state to inflict religious beliefs on others. This is better than most candidates, I suppose, but I just wish he would apply the same level of scrutiny to what he says he believes about religion that he does to Republican policies.

The Audacity of Hope

Sorry for the delinquency in posting lately...a lot of things have been going on.

Anyway, I'm currently reading Barack Obama's The Audacity of Hope on audiobook right now (read by Obama). I avoided it for a while because I thought the title was schmalzty, and I thought it would be a preachy, mushy-headed plea for change and optimism in American politics.

Turns out it's actually pretty good, and the content surprised me. It's one part interesting civics lesson, one part a biography of Obama's political history, and one part policy proposals for improving America. And it's good. Sometimes I get the sense that he's telling me what I want to hear, and sometimes I wonder the extent to which the words are his own, but more often I find that he seems honest, articulate, and engaging.

Obama is unapologetic as he describes his liberal views, but talks about how the political climate has become more polarized and less substantive, and about how this is harmful to the political process and ultimately to the American citizen. I did wonder about this thesis, though. Obama taught law, and seems to know a lot about American history. But he never really convinces me that politics haven't always been extremely polarized, and that there's anything really different about the current climate. Any student of history could probably make a convincing case that politics in Washington were just as full of fluff and rancor 100 years ago as they are today, if not more so.

His actual policy proposals are a mixed bag. He remains in a maddening valley between vague and specific. Some proposals I like, such as increasing salaries for teachers and funding for basic science, but such things cost money and he never talks about cutting any other programs (at least that I've seen, and I'm about 3/4 of the way through the book). Other specifics seem silly, such as his energy policy. He wants "real funding" for alternative energy sources, proposing that 1% of oil company revenue be used to research alternative fuels. Why exactly should a particular industry be forced by the government to fund research that would replace the core of their business model?

Obama is best when he's talking about his personal history in politics, from his various state and national Senate races to his swearing in and personal interactions with other politicians, such as President Bush. He talks about how he disagrees strongly with Bush's policies, but still finds him a likable man who honestly thinks he's doing what he thinks is best for the country.

Throughout the book, Obama reiterates the message that both liberals and conservatives have become increasingly polarized by their dogmatism, and he repeatedly urges politicians and citizens to focus on substance and look at both political candidates and policy decisions in their totality, rather than vilifying them in a reactionary way. And on that point, his message certainly does resonate.

Even though it is a mixed bag and I'm still cautious about how authentic Obama is, I'd recommend the book, and based on reading it, I'd be more likely to vote for him in the Fall.

Jackson Says He Wants to "Cut Obama's Nuts Off"

Apparently while waiting to be interviewed, Jesse Jackson was caught on a "hot mic" criticizing Barack Obama for "talking down to black folks". Then he said he wanted to cut off Obama's nuts, and gave a little twist of his fist.

I don't think this will hurt Obama. If anything it will probably help him. Still, it's funny:

The Straight Dope Hates All Over the Flat Tax

Cecil gets asked about the flat tax, and it turns out he's not a fan:

As a general proposition, the wealthiest Americans do pay the bulk of the individual income taxes collected in the U.S. That's a point worth making, since the belief that the rich pay zip while the little guy gets slugged is the impetus behind the "flat tax" proposal, the stupidest idea to come down the pike since pet rocks.

He then cites some statistics like this one showing that the rich bear a large percentage of the tax burden:

The top 3 percent of filers, those making $100,000-plus, paid 40 percent of the taxes.

So what information is he leaving out? He's not saying what percentage of their income rich people are paying.

It could very well be the case that the top 3 percent of filers pay 40 percent of the taxes, but that they're still only being taxed at a rate of 18%.

According to this story:

Warren E. Buffett was his usual folksy self Tuesday night at a fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as he slammed a system that allows the very rich to pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class.

Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

Cecil's entire argument rests on the percentage of total taxes that rich people pay, rather than demonstrating whether or not taxes really are "progressive" (a shitty word, if you ask me).

If you simplify the tax code, treat all income equally, and tax everyone at a flat rate sensible enough to still fill our coffers, it would be a simpler, fairer, more transparent tax system.

Obama Trying to Jump the Shark

In an attempt to see how much he can pander to the religious vote, Obama has decided to back Federal funding for "faith-based" programs.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said he would spend at least $500 million a year to promote community aid programs run by faith-based groups.

Blech.

And get this part:

Obama, 46, an Illinois senator, called for rules to ensure that the council wouldn't breach the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. Federal money could only be spent on non-religious activities and groups couldn't discriminate when deciding who will get their aid.

Hey Obama...if you really want to make sure that there's no breach of the separation of church and state how about not giving my fucking taxes to religious organizations?

Man, it's going to be a long, hard slog to the election in November. I'd nearly made up my mind, but occasionally McCain will say something that appeals to me, and Obama will pull a boner like this.

Please make him stop.

Is Democracy a Religion?

Well, no...of course it isn't.

But that was the discussion question for the group at the UU church I attended with Jill this morning.

There were perhaps twenty people, and we burned a good fifteen minutes on introductions, and another five on UU testimonials for the new folks, before we got to the topic at hand.

It could have been an interesting discussion, unfortunately there was little said in direct response to points that had been previously made, people preferring to deliver their own laborious, discursive monologues on the subject. Too bad.

I raised my hand a couple of times anyway, initially saying (as I've noted here before) that inherent in the definition of a religion is some underpinning of supernaturality (i.e. belief in a god or gods). If the definition is spread beyond that it basically becomes too watered down to be of much use in discourse.

Judaism? A religion. Islam? Yep. Fly fishing? Um...no.

To talk about fly fishing metaphorically as a religion, sure...but not in the literal sense.

Of course, I was among Unitarians, so some of them didn't like the oh so narrow box I was putting religion in. One fellow said that a religion is a system of thought that deals with absolutes.

It seems to me, though, that any system of thought that explains origins, morality, etc. without supernaturality is instead a philosophy.

Otherwise, what does it mean to say that someone is "a religious man"? Simply that they've thought about absolutes? I don't think so. Religiosity entails belief in a higher power, in supernaturality, whatever form that might take.

As a system of thought, as I've noted here before, religion also, by its character, approaches the concept of truth from the perspective that it is received.

Truth is not something you sift out of existence methodically, through trial and error. No, from the religious perspective truth is inherent in holy writings, through the lips of holy men, or perhaps directly from god on high.

This is the essential defining characteristic of religion that I find so distasteful.

And yet I haven't talked about democracy at all. Well, it's quite obviously a political philosophy, a system of ideas about the way people should be governed. And that is, that to the greatest extent possible, people should govern themselves (or each other...depending on how you look at it). If you've read this blog much at all, you know I'm a strong adherent of democratic philosophy.

In fact, I'm one of the few people I know who thinks America should be much more democratic than it currently is. I believe the more diffuse, and the less hierarchical, power structures are, the more fair and just they become.

But am I a religious man?

God forbid.

Originally posted 1/5/2003

Recalling Bobby Jindal

Well, Jindal signed the incredibly stupid Louisiana Science Education Act, but that didn't seem to upset too many people.

What did upset a lot of people is that he didn't veto a recent pay raise that Louisiana legislators proposed for themselves.

Now papers have been filed calling for a recall of Jindal.

Part of me thinks this is kind of amusing and also appropriate. Another part of me realizes that this is probably dirty pool, trying to taint a young rising star in the party who is being considered as a VP nominee by McCain. Recalls in general are a bad idea, I think. The candidates are vetted by a long and grueling process, and office terms aren't that long. I think if you make your bed, you have to sleep in it. If you screwed up, vote the person out the next election.

Still, I find this somewhat amusing.