Month: February 2009

On Bobby Jindal

I’ve found the blogosphere’s collective reaction to Bobby Jindal’s rebuttal speech the other night rather surprising in many ways – and sadly expected in others.  The responses seem to fall in three major groups:

  1. Allahpundits – Could just as easily be named after LGF, but I’ve already poked that bear once this week. These are the conservatives who reacted strongly in a negative way to Jindal’s response, often reacting negatively to Jindal himself for various reasons (chiefly his pro-ID stance or strong orthodox Catholicism, from what I have seen). They criticize his form or his beliefs while generally (sometimes reluctantly) praising his content.
  2. Dittoheads – The Rush Limbaugh types who love what he said and don’t care how he said it. They see Jindal as the next coming of Reagan, the Conservative counterpart to Barack Obama. Rush praised Jindal on his show, going so far as to say that “I don’t want to hear from you ever again if you think that what Bobby Jindal said was bad or what he said was wrong or not said well, because, folks, style is not going to take our country back.”
  3. Liberals – Hated on Jindal for his politics, beliefs, race, and everything else you can think of. From Chris Matthews’ “oh god” and “outsourcing” comments to Paul Begala’s “kook right” cracks, backed by endless commenters decrying him as simply the GOP’s attempt to play the race card (hello, Michael Steele) – we see the seething leftist masses decrying the Lousiana governor simply for opening his mouth to challenge the Annointed One.

And then there’s me. I fall somewhere between the first two points, but leaning more toward the Dittohead crowd – Jindal’s otherwise-brilliant performance was tarnished by a slightly wooden demeanor. I think he was trying too hard to play to the crowd, or as Ace put it, “channel his inner Bubba.”  He, like Mitt Romney, cannot pull this off successfully, and comes off as fake when trying to do so. Instead, he should be allowed to present himself as who he is – a somewhat stiff intellectual, who is also brilliant and insightful. Conservatism is not about appeals to emotion – appealing to what feels good is practically the definition of liberalism – but it must be communicated effectively. Reagan is remembered as great not because he made people feel warm and fuzzy, but because he made smart choices and then communicated them effectively, while not compromising his position. This is the conservatism that the GOP needs to rediscover if it wants to succeed.

Ed Morrisey has his appearance on the Today show the day after the rebuttal speech. Here, he is engaged in a discussion where he provides quick, confident, specific answers and facts and appears confident and passionate. This is Jindal at his best. Unlike Sarah Palin, who excelled at getting in front of a crowd and getting them hyped up in a rah-rah style of enthusiasm, but didn’t appear confident when having to quickly shift gears (especially with a hostile interviewer), Jindal is much better one-on-one where he can directly react and respond to the other party. He is analytical and quick on his feet when taking questions or even attacks, and is able to respond strongly and effectively. It is for this reason that I would like to see a ticket along the lines of Jindal/Palin for 2012 – a strong, focused, extremely intelligent leader at the top of the ticket, with a powerful supporting figure who can energize and relate more effectively supporting the ticket. While I don’t know where these politicians will be in three years – or if Palin can recover from her “Quayling” – it will be interesting to see what happens next.

You keep using that word

…I do not think it means what you think it means.

Charles Johnson, over at LGF, has grown a (rather well-deserved) reputation as an anti-Creationist – to the point where he vehemently opposes allowing anything other than the theory of evolution in a classroom setting. He defends himself most recently by saying that if prominent Republicans believe intelligent design theories should be taught, then they will cost us elections, because they are anti-science.

Unfortunately, intelligent design is not “pseudo-science.” It is a scientific theory that explains the facts we have available to us – much like Darwinian evolution. Both follow the scientific method as far as they can, both have holes in their theories, and both can never be proven as scientific fact. The key difference is that one allows for the existance of a god and one does not (or at least does not allow him/it to be involved).

Mr. Johnson considers himself an agnostic, last I read – however, over the years, he seems to be turning more and more into an athiest, bordering on the evangelical variety. His mental leap from “anti-exclusionist” to “Creationist” to “anti-science” is only further evidence of the violent reaction he has to the idea of science accepting the possibility of God – and so he uses his immensely popular blog to preach against the ID movement with almost the same fervor he uses to decry terrorism, presumably thinking he is being noble, or a “true scientist.” However, stifling a legitimate theory that is supported by a large number of scientists is not noble, or scientific – it is simple censorship, and it’s a sad thing when such a brilliant writer as Mr. Johnson succumbs to this type of thinking.

Please be joking

I love how last time I posted I talked about being more consistent in writing, and then a week went by without me doing anything here. I’m awesome like that.

So I’ll be starting off today with gaffes and appalling statements made by famous people! Yay! Let’s get started.

President Obama: “[The] nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.”  Except it was Germany that invented it, not us. Oops!

Vice President Biden: “I’m embarassed, I don’t know the website number… I should have it in front of me…” I’ll steal Ace’s comment on this one: “Thank God we dodged that idiot Palin as VP, huh?”

And my personal favorite:

A Senior White House Official: “President Obama has accomplished more in 30 days than any president in modern history.” How high are these people, and what are they on? And where can I get some?

The People vs. George Lucas

As a long-time Star Wars geek, I thought the prequel movies were terrible. The 3rd was the best of the three, and my initial reaction was “that was actually pretty good,” but after rewatching it I realized that the evening’s Starbucks coffee must have been laced with hallucinogens, because the steaming pile of dog turds presented to me on the screen was nothing compared to the Star Wars I remembered. I remember telling someone that I felt like George Lucas had raped my inner child with those films, and I still view anything he touches with a certain distrust.

And it’s because of people like me that a group of fans have decided to explore the phenomenon that is George Lucas Hatred, with a documentary called The People vs. George Lucas. There’s a trailer up on there to get an idea of what you’re in for.

But my irritation with Lucas comes nowhere near that of this fellow, who may have just secured himself a spot in the film:

Continue reading The People vs. George Lucas