Bobby Jindal’s Volcano Monitoring Slam Backfires

Science • Views: 5,152

When Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal took a cheap shot at the volcano monitoring program, I winced. Just what we need, another ignorant anti-science comment from a Republican spokesperson—and on top of it, this came from a spokesperson who promoted and signed a stealth creationism bill.

Less than a month later Alaska’s Mount Redoubt exploded in a massive eruption, sending clouds of superheated smoke and ash 11 miles into the atmosphere, and airplane pilots were very grateful for those volcano monitors Bobby Jindal slammed: Will Jindal Eat Words On Volcano Funding?

The Alaska Volcano Observatory was ready with warnings to flight officials when Alaska’s Mount Redoubt blew, sending potentially deadly ash clouds north of Anchorage.

Readings from seismometers and atmospheric pressure sensors alerted scientists that an eruption had occurred. Weather radar confirmed the presence of an ash cloud that ascended more than 11 miles above sea level.

“Without instruments in the ground, we would not have been able to tell you this was coming,” said John Power, a geophysicist with the U.S. Geological Survey at the Alaska Volcano Observatory.

Volcano monitoring became a political issue when Jindal gave the Republican response to President Obama’s message to Congress on the economic stimulus package. Jindal said the package was “larded with wasteful spending,” including $140 million for volcano monitoring.

Jump to bottom

297 comments
1 [deleted]  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:14:39am
2 Nevergiveup  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:15:18am

And Jindal's timing was almost as good as Gore's?

3 debutaunt  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:15:26am

Damn you, plate tectonics.

4 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:16:37am

Eisenhower told the American people to be wary of the Military/Industrial complex when he left office; now we only have to worry about the Political/Creationist complex.

5 MandyManners  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:16:37am

re: #1 buzzsawmonkey

Feel the lava.

Vent if it'll make you feel better.

6 Kragar  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:17:01am

This calls for some Hot Lava!

7 zandtar  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:17:22am

Want to bet the mainstream media is all over this, and 'investigates' it further. All while continuing to ignore Fannie and Freddy, and their hooks into the Congress.

8 Gella  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:17:32am

small price to pay for saving lives

9 FrogMarch  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:17:37am

Republicans - get your freaking act together.

10 Oh no...Sand People!  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:18:15am

I question the timing...
/

11 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:18:18am

Will the world start wanting reparations from the US to offset the environmental damage from the ash like they did from the Mt. St. Helens eruptions in 1980?

12 redc1c4  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:18:39am

re: #9 FrogMarch

Republicans - get your freaking act together.

they aren't Republicans.

13 doppelganglander  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:18:45am

Was Jindal trying to look like an ignorant rube? Because if he was, it worked.

14 Sharmuta  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:19:00am

The fact is there is a lot of legitimate scientific spending the government does along these lines, and it saves lives whether it's volcano monitoring, or water treatment facilities. It is the responsibility of the government to protect us in these ways. Jindal should publicly apologize.

15 BenghaziHoops  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:19:07am

I can see Bobby's point..Valcano's don't exist..It takes millions of years to form pressures from Continental drift and the great forces within the earth.. You just can't get there in 6000 years.

16 gander  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:19:25am

Volcanos, like Levees and Hurricanes need to be monitored.

17 Gella  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:20:00am

re: #14 Sharmuta

The fact is there is a lot of legitimate scientific spending the government does along these lines, and it saves lives whether it's volcano monitoring, or water treatment facilities. It is the responsibility of the government to protect us in these ways. Jindal should publicly apologize.

i just want to sing: Back to USSR, they don't care about their people, sounds familiar

18 Maui Girl  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:20:01am

Let's discuss something reallllyyy important like the fact that the administration is now going to attempt to put stipulations on bonuses awarded to ANY executives working for ANY corporation, large company, what have you, whether or not they have accepted government funds. New authority and more authority to go forward and start regulating PRIVATE companies and the compensation they award their workers. Government centralization aka SOCIALISM, folks. That's what the almighty Obama wants and we're worrying about volcano monitoring and creationism. We have an eruption about to happen in Washington and the only thing we should be worrying about in terms of creationism? Fulfilling Obama's dream of creating a socialist state out of our United States. Big news today and it's not good.

19 jdog29  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:20:49am

Since Jindal was trying to make the point about pork barrel, pet project, wasteful spending, I wonder why he couldn't or one of his staffers couldn't come up with a super fantastic example out of probably a minimum of one thousand super fantastic examples handed to him by this "spend our way to prosperity" government?

20 kingkenrod  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:20:55am
"While some of the projects in the bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending and includes $300-million to buy new cars for the government, $8-billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a magnetic levitation line from Las Vegas to Disneyland, and $140-million for something called volcano monitoring. Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C."

I suspect Jindal picked the volcano monitoring just because it sets up the dig at Washington politicians, and it sounds stupid, like the govt pays some guy to sit in a lawn chair to watch the volcano and call someone if it blows. Jindal should just admit he was wrong and be more careful. There's plenty of more important things to complain about.

21 Oh no...Sand People!  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:21:03am

re: #14 Sharmuta

The fact is there is a lot of legitimate scientific spending the government does along these lines, and it saves lives whether it's volcano monitoring, or water treatment facilities. It is the responsibility of the government to protect us in these ways. Jindal should publicly apologize.

Exactly, and usually those are the programs we don't hear about for they are useful and are good to have. It's the programs where we always here something about them that have an agenda ($$$) attached that never shut up and give all the rest a bad name to those who just casually observe.

22 Oh no...Sand People!  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:21:59am

re: #18 Maui Girl

Let's discuss something reallllyyy important like the fact that the administration is now going to attempt to put stipulations on bonuses awarded to ANY executives working for ANY corporation, large company, what have you, whether or not they have accepted government funds. New authority and more authority to go forward and start regulating PRIVATE companies and the compensation they award their workers. Government centralization aka SOCIALISM, folks. That's what the almighty Obama wants and we're worrying about volcano monitoring and creationism. We have an eruption about to happen in Washington and the only thing we should be worrying about in terms of creationism? Fulfilling Obama's dream of creating a socialist state out of our United States. Big news today and it's not good.

If you aren't willing to clean your own house why bother with the neighbors...

23 Sharmuta  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:22:12am

re: #18 Maui Girl

How about you get your own blog and we can come over and tell you what you should be posting about?

24 Salamantis  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:22:25am

re: #18 Maui Girl

Let's discuss something reallllyyy important like the fact that the administration is now going to attempt to put stipulations on bonuses awarded to ANY executives working for ANY corporation, large company, what have you, whether or not they have accepted government funds. New authority and more authority to go forward and start regulating PRIVATE companies and the compensation they award their workers. Government centralization aka SOCIALISM, folks. That's what the almighty Obama wants and we're worrying about volcano monitoring and creationism. We have an eruption about to happen in Washington and the only thing we should be worrying about in terms of creationism? Fulfilling Obama's dream of creating a socialist state out of our United States. Big news today and it's not good.

No, the volcano stuff is just a symptom; what we're really worried about is an ignorant and fanatical chump like Jindal being hyped as the Great Republican Hope in 2012.

25 Desert Dog  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:22:28am

There was more than enough pork in that bill for Jindal to question. Unlucky for him, he picked something that was actually beneficial. I think we should be monitoring volcanoes and studying them as much as we can. However, this was a stimulus bill that was allegedly designed to stimulate the economy. Does funding a volcano monitoring program stimulate the economy? How does most of the crap in that monstrosity stimulate the economy? That kind of spending should be in a bill for funding scientific endeavors, not one designed to jump start the economy.

That "Stimulus Package" was nothing but a giant spending spree by congress. It appears that every Congressman and Senator just grabbed every pet project and wishlist item and tossed it in. I cannot believe many of them read the actual bill.....it was rammed through as necessary and vital. I hope my grandkids and their kids have fun paying for all of this nonsense.

26 Zimriel  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:22:47am

re: #7 zandtar

re: #18 Maui Girl

Wow. Not even 20 comments and we already have two "let's talk about the REAL issues!" whines.

27 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:22:53am

re: #18 Maui Girl

Some people, such as the army of lgf lizards, can hold in their brains more than one thought at a time. Both issues are critical to the health and long term survival of our Republic as I see it.

28 Proximate  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:23:16am

Jindal will regret this, especially when the Volcano monitoring stimulus plan takes off. We'll all have high-paying Volcano monitoring jobs, and the country will have the intense prosperity that come from increased government spending.

Jindal is a fool for opposing spending with the weak excuse that some of it more properly belongs to a regular yearly budget. All government spending is good. The more, the better. Prosperity, here we come!

29 Tamron  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:23:25am

OT:

Rolling Stone - HOW TAXPAYERS ARE WILLINGLY FUNDING THEIR OWN DOWNFALL

MATT TAIBBI Mar 19, 2009

"...The latest bailout came as AIG admitted to having just posted the largest quarterly loss in American corporate history — some $61.7 billion. In the final three months of last year, the company lost more than $27 million every hour. That's $465,000 a minute, a yearly income for a median American household every six seconds, roughly $7,750 a second. And all this happened at the end of eight straight years that America devoted to frantically chasing the shadow of a terrorist threat to no avail, eight years spent stopping every citizen at every airport to search every purse, bag, crotch and briefcase for juice boxes and explosive tubes of toothpaste. Yet in the end, our government had no mechanism for searching the balance sheets of companies that held life-or-death power over our society and was unable to spot holes in the national economy the size of Libya (whose entire GDP last year was smaller than AIG's 2008 losses)..."


Excellent article.
.

30 Sloan  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:23:50am

I gotta say, as much as I do generally support Republicans, I'm absolutely disgusted with the way that the party has allied itself with the anti-science wing of the social conservatives. Let's make it a plank in the party platform: "We support the teaching of evolution in public schools and reject any theory that is not testable and is not grounded in evidence." Or something like that.

31 Emperor Norton  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:23:53am

I don't know
I don't know
I don't know where I'm a-gonna go
When the volcano blows.

--Jimmy Buffett.

32 monkey den  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:24:07am

Obama has certainly gotten a bumpy start so far, but when the h*ll is a legitimate conservative (small 'c') candidate going to step up?

33 albusteve  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:24:14am

Bobby blew it...nothing but smoke and ash now

34 Lee Coller  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:24:17am

re: #18 Maui Girl

Are you saying having a chief executive who doesn't understand the importance of these public safety monitoring programs (earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, tsunami's) isn't important, its exactly the kind of thing government should be doing, and the governor of a state that is subject to Hurricane's to not understand that is quite frightening, whatever you think of Jindal's positions on other subjects.

35 Bloodnok  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:24:55am

re: #18 Maui Girl

It's not that simple. I would apologize for the fact that we have to take a long, cold look at our own party (for most of us here) which includes exposing warts and all, if I felt an apology was required; but I don't. This is in all of our best interests as a party just as much as any protest about the Obama administration is.

36 acwgusa  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:25:10am

That's it, I think I'm re-registering as an independent again.

37 doppelganglander  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:25:22am

re: #24 Salamantis

No, the volcano stuff is just a symptom; what we're really worried about is an ignorant and fanatical chump like Jindal being hyped as the Great Republican Hope in 2012.

I think that ship has sailed.

38 albusteve  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:25:27am

re: #16 gander

Volcanos, like Levees and Hurricanes need to be monitored.

as well as creationists....maybe them most of all

39 Zimriel  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:25:53am

re: #28 Proximate

We'll all have high-paying Volcano monitoring jobs, and the country will have the intense prosperity that come from increased government spending.

Or, we could just be, you know, not dead.

40 Oh no...Sand People!  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:26:10am

Volcano Girls, Veruca Salt:

41 [deleted]  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:26:25am
42 Russkilitlover  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:26:34am

re: #14 Sharmuta

The fact is there is a lot of legitimate scientific spending the government does along these lines, and it saves lives whether it's volcano monitoring, or water treatment facilities. It is the responsibility of the government to protect us in these ways. Jindal should publicly apologize.

And NEVER be considered for President!

43 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:26:55am

re: #33 albusteve

Bobby blew it...nothing but smoke and ash now

It'll probably be known as his magma opus.

44 jcm  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:27:04am

Uh, oh, did Rahm steal Rove's volcano machine to make Bobby look bad?

///////

45 Salamantis  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:27:16am

re: #37 doppelganglander

I think that ship has sailed.

In fact, it was most probably the very 'Republican response' speech in which Jindal volcano-gaffed that shooed it out of the harbor.

46 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:27:38am

re: #24 Salamantis

No, the volcano stuff is just a symptom; what we're really worried about is an ignorant and fanatical chump like Jindal being hyped as the Great Republican Hope in 2012.

Quite a few people I have regular contact with considered McCain to be that, Conservatism be damned, and look where we are now.

47 Oh no...Sand People!  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:27:49am

re: #41 taxfreekiller

Barny Frank Democrat leader in congress backfires,,

Lover splattered.

Poo hit the fan, eh?
/ducks under desk...

48 Lee Coller  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:27:58am

re: #44 jcm

Uh, oh, did Rahm steal Rove's volcano machine to make Bobby look bad?

///////

I thought only Rove had that ability. You mean to tell me Rahm Emmanuel is also all-powerful?

49 Bloodnok  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:28:09am

re: #28 Proximate

Go educate yourself on what Government spending is and what it is for and come back. I'm sure you'd support eliminating NASA, huh?

50 albusteve  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:28:29am

Bobby has bad hair....he's finished

51 acwgusa  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:28:39am

re: #47 Oh no...Sand People!

Poo hit the fan, eh?
/ducks under desk...

Well, there goes my lunch.

52 Oh no...Sand People!  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:29:18am

re: #51 acwgusa

Sorry...I couldn't resist...

53 Salamantis  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:29:18am

re: #46 FurryOldGuyJeans

Quite a few people I have regular contact with considered McCain to be that, Conservatism be damned, and look where we are now.

My man Rudy doesn't look so unacceptably liberal now, does he? Considering what we've got instead...

54 doppelganglander  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:29:29am

re: #29 Tamron

OT:

Rolling Stone - HOW TAXPAYERS ARE WILLINGLY FUNDING THEIR OWN DOWNFALL


Excellent article.
.

I am very tired of the false dichotomy libs like to make between fighting the war on terror and doing almost anything else. The WOT (or whatever euphemism we're employing now) has absolutely nothing to do with AIG or anything else. Our government is big enough to walk and chew gum at the same time. Whether they're competent to do either, of course, is another question.

55 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:29:37am

re: #18 Maui Girl

Considering that volcano monitoring is something that affects your state directly, it is pertinent and important. Jindal was showing why he should not be the 2012 candidate with that quip he had about volcano monitoring.

56 BenghaziHoops  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:29:43am

re: #36 acwgusa

That's it, I think I'm re-registering as an independent again.

So.. You'd vote for the Hoopster if I ran for Office?
/I've got one vote people! A long journey starts with one step..
//I've got to get my promises I plan on breaking all documented..
///Let's hope it changes My new motto

57 [deleted]  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:29:58am
58 kingkenrod  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:30:22am

re: #29 Tamron

OT:

Rolling Stone - HOW TAXPAYERS ARE WILLINGLY FUNDING THEIR OWN DOWNFALL


Excellent article.
.

Coming from Rolling Stone and Matt Taibbi, I don't believe a word of it even if it's true.

59 jcm  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:30:43am

re: #54 doppelganglander

I am very tired of the false dichotomy libs like to make between fighting the war on terror and doing almost anything else. The WOT (or whatever euphemism we're employing now) has absolutely nothing to do with AIG or anything else. Our government is big enough to walk and chew gum at the same time. Whether they're competent to do either, of course, is another question.

But the POTUS can't speak one sentence with the TOTUS.

60 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:31:47am

re: #53 Salamantis

My man Rudy doesn't look so unacceptably liberal now, does he? Considering what we've got instead...

I never discounted Rudy, was just hoping for someone even passingly more Goldwater/Reagan conservative.

61 Proximate  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:32:05am

re: #49 Bloodnok

I've always been a big fan of space science, and have always wanted its spending increased, but that's not the reason I support increasing funding for NASA now...

No, Bloodnok, I'm telling you I'm one of the converted to socialism. All government spending is good, especially if it's for a good cause. And all of it is for a good cause. Every bit is for a noble cause of some sort. G-d bless those bureaucrats for wanting what is best for us.

62 albusteve  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:32:36am

re: #60 FurryOldGuyJeans

I never discounted Rudy, was just hoping for someone even passingly more Goldwater/Reagan conservative.

right wing extremists?....whoa

63 Zimriel  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:33:00am

re: #49 Bloodnok

Go educate yourself on what Government spending is and what it is for and come back. I'm sure you'd support eliminating NASA, huh?

Well, I might. NASA's got problems.

Volcano monitoring is an action. NASA is a bunch of guys in an office. To fund volcano monitoring we can set up one agency, and if they screw up then we can fire the lot and set up a new one. To fund aeronautics and space, we could go by a number of options: private funding and deregulation, letting the Air Force have at it, creating a replacement agency, etc. There's nothing magical about NASA that demands we keep throwing money at it.

64 abolitionist  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:33:28am
65 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:34:05am

re: #62 albusteve

right wing extremists?....whoa

Not even close, bubba. You need to do some serious reading on what Goldwater stood for before you make such blatantly ignorant comments.

If you meant the comment as sarcasm I sure didn't see it that way.

66 brookly red  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:34:40am

re: #26 Zimriel

re: #18 Maui Girl

Wow. Not even 20 comments and we already have two "let's talk about the REAL issues!" whines.

I didn't take 7 as a whine... 18, no contest.

67 Zimriel  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:35:04am

re: #61 Proximate

No, Bloodnok, I'm telling you I'm one of the converted to socialism. All government spending is good, especially if it's for a good cause. And all of it is for a good cause. Every bit is for a noble cause of some sort. G-d bless those bureaucrats for wanting what is best for us.

You're not nearly as witty as you think you are.

68 albusteve  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:35:24am

re: #65 FurryOldGuyJeans

Not even close, bubba. You need to do some serious reading on what Goldwater stood for before you make such blatantly ignorant comments.

If you meant the comment as sarcasm I sure didn't see it that way.

it was...99.9% of posters here are huge fans of those two

69 Salamantis  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:35:37am

re: #60 FurryOldGuyJeans

I never discounted Rudy, was just hoping for someone even passingly more Goldwater/Reagan conservative.

Well, at least Rudy pulled New York City out of debt and near bankruptcy; The O is hauling the whole country into bankruptcy in a jet-powered handbasket.

70 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:35:56am

re: #61 Proximate

What a brain-dead tool of an Obot.

71 jdog29  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:36:13am

re: #37 doppelganglander

I think that ship has sailed.

I think that volcano's been capped and traded

72 Desert Dog  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:37:02am

We should fund "Congress Monitoring"....so, we'll know when to run for our lives when they "erupt" with pork-laden lava.

I guess anytime they are in session is a time to get ready to run for your life....

73 daledog  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:37:34am

re: #23 Sharmuta

Dissenting voices not allowed here? Since when?

And no, I'm not defending her statement.

74 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:37:46am

re: #69 Salamantis

Well, at least Rudy pulled New York City out of debt and near bankruptcy; The O is hauling the whole country into bankruptcy in a jet-powered handbasket.

Time for you to step off the campaign trail, the 2008 ship has sailed. And Rudy scuttled it all by his lonesome as I see it.

75 fish  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:37:48am

Jindal's point was valid. Volcano Monitoring has nothing to do with economic stimulus. Of course all that is remembered is that Jindal doesn't want to study volcanoes. Bad timing and bad presentation skills make him look like a fool now.

76 Zimriel  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:37:50am

re: #70 FurryOldGuyJeans

What a brain-dead tool of an Obot.

Proximate is not an Obot. He is attempting parody, by extrapolating that if we support volcano monitoring (or just wish Jindal had chosen another example) then we're communists. He's just not good at it.

77 albusteve  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:38:36am

re: #73 daledog

Dissenting voices not allowed here? Since when?

And no, I'm not defending her statement.

she was not dissenting imo

78 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:38:41am

re: #73 daledog

Dissenting voices not allowed here? Since when?

And no, I'm not defending her statement.

When the voices are raised to tell Charles what he can or can't do with HIS blog.

79 Ayeless in Ghazi  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:38:47am

Volcano monitoring should be done by private companies. They can make money to pay for it from advertising revenue from their website, T-shirt and baseball cap sales etc//

80 brookly red  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:39:00am

re: #72 Desert Dog

We should fund "Congress Monitoring"....so, we'll know when to run for our lives when they "erupt" with pork-laden lava.

I guess anytime they are in session is a time to get ready to run for your life....

/back in my meat eating days my chopped BBQ was call with pork-laden lava. I like hot sause.

81 Bloodnok  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:39:07am

re: #61 Proximate

Post something else. I don't think I've figured out what your gimmick is yet.

82 Silvergirl  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:39:46am

re: #4 FurryOldGuyJeans

Eisenhower told the American people to be wary of the Military/Industrial complex when he left office; now we only have to worry about the Political/Creationist complex.

I got Sputnik Mania from Netflix and watched it yesterday. The parts that showed Eisenhower speaking to the American people were impressive. I heart Eisenhower.

It was a well-done documentary with some fun thrown in.

83 [deleted]  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:39:48am
84 BenghaziHoops  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:40:20am

re: #79 Jimmah

Volcano monitoring should be done by private companies. They can make money to pay for it from advertising revenue from their website, T-shirt and baseball cap sales etc//


They could sell T-Shirts that say..Watch my eruption on the Web.
or I'm as hot as lava.

85 monkey den  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:40:34am

re: #36 acwgusa

That's it, I think I'm re-registering as an independent again.


I agree, though I've always been indy. I think many voters will find they have nowhere to turn in 2012.

86 Sharmuta  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:40:36am

re: #73 daledog

There's a difference between dissenting and telling the blog master what to do with his own blog.

87 Salamantis  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:40:47am

re: #70 FurryOldGuyJeans

What a brain-dead tool of an Obot.

Actually, I suspect he's a Jindalbot, who is peeved at the criticism of his creationism-in-public-school-bill-signing, college-christian-club-exorcism-performing, vocano-monitoring-dissing, last best hope for the nation.

88 jcm  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:40:58am

re: #61 Proximate

I hope you left a /sarc tag out........

89 Zimriel  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:41:01am

re: #79 Jimmah

Volcano monitoring should be done by private companies. They can make money to pay for it from advertising revenue from their website, T-shirt and baseball cap sales etc//

How about a Yellowstone Amusement Park? Set up a concrete platform with some parachutes. When the caldera blows, the people lucky enough to have tickets will get to see the whole of western Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.

90 Lazarus  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:41:03am

Govenrment has no business funding science. Volcano monitoring is obviously a huge value, not only to airplane pilots, which people would gladly pay businesses good money to provide. People shouldn't be forced by government to pay for it; let the free market make it happen.

91 Silvergirl  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:41:27am

re: #56 HoosierHoops

So.. You'd vote for the Hoopster if I ran for Office?
/I've got one vote people! A long journey starts with one step..
//I've got to get my promises I plan on breaking all documented..
///Let's hope it changes My new motto

Your motto is perfect.

Two votes now.

92 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:41:37am

re: #82 Silvergirl

I got Sputnik Mania from Netflix and watched it yesterday. The parts that showed Eisenhower speaking to the American people were impressive. I heart Eisenhower.

It was a well-done documentary with some fun thrown in.

The man is one of the most under-rated and under-appreciated presidents of recent history.

93 jcm  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:42:08am

re: #84 HoosierHoops

They could sell T-Shirts that say..Watch my eruption on the Web.
or I'm as hot as lava.

I HAD A BLAST AT MT. ST. HELENS!

94 funky chicken  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:42:10am

re: #83 taxfreekiller

google

Robert Byrd Pork

facts count up

Exactly. So Jindal's/the RNC's speechwriter couldn't hit one of the myriad Byrd pork projects, or perhaps the pig farm odor abatement project championed by Tom Harkin?

They had to pick out something that actually does serve the national interest and is a legitimate scientific research function?

95 tfc3rid  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:42:25am

Insanity alert... Phil Donahue on FNC talking about Obama speaking at Notre Dame commencement... Phil saying that ND would welcome George Bush who murdered 4,00 of our own people and over 1 Million Iraqis.

96 Leonidas Hoplite  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:42:25am

re: #90 Lazarus

Govenrment has no business funding science. Volcano monitoring is obviously a huge value, not only to airplane pilots, which people would gladly pay businesses good money to provide. People shouldn't be forced by government to pay for it; let the free market make it happen.

I hope you have your hipwaders on...

97 Maui Girl  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:42:54am

Sorry, should have put a big OT at the start of my post.

I live where there are volcanoes, hurricanes, flooding, AND tsunamis and yes, it's important. But not "immediate" kine important. I was just venting because this is such big news today and I was just watching it on TV and I got all excited and.... Boy, if I can't come here to speak my mind without being castrated, gee whiz. I guess if I don't "stick" to the subject, I should go elsewhere except this is the ONLY blog that I visit and when so inclined, comment on.

I think Jindal was just trying to make a point regarding the pork in the bill and he used a bad example. He doesn't have to deal with volanic activity in his state so he doesn't understand the importance of monitoring in this case.
Personally, he's too narrowminded in certain subject areas and I wouldn't vote for him.

Thank you for your responses. I have effectively been muzzled.

98 Zimriel  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:43:00am

re: #90 Lazarus

Govenrment has no business funding science. Volcano monitoring is obviously a huge value, not only to airplane pilots, which people would gladly pay businesses good money to provide. People shouldn't be forced by government to pay for it; let the free market make it happen.

I guess the government shouldn't fund a Navy either. If we want our shipping protected, the companies should hire freebooters from Port Royal, Jamaica. Avast, ye hearties!

99 albusteve  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:43:23am

re: #94 funky chicken

Exactly. So Jindal's/the RNC's speechwriter couldn't hit one of the myriad Byrd pork projects, or perhaps the pig farm odor abatement project championed by Tom Harkin?

They had to pick out something that actually does serve the national interest and is a legitimate scientific research function?

he exposed himself right there....he's anti-science period

100 Zimriel  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:43:44am

I think the gamey-buttock grill just ran out of space.

101 slterry40  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:43:45am

I don't know that Jindal was slamming Volcano monitoring, so much as he was slamming speding "stimulus" dollars on volcano monitoring. I is hard to argue that there is any stimulative effect to it. The issue was passing the spending under such misleading circumstances.

102 Ayeless in Ghazi  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:44:01am

re: #84 HoosierHoops

They could sell T-Shirts that say..Watch my eruption on the Web.
or I'm as hot as lava.

Heh. I've got a couple:

"When volcano monitors go down, things get real hot"

"Is that a seismic spike or are you just pleased to see me?"

103 Maui Girl  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:44:02am

re: #95 tfc3rid

Hey, as I was told. Stick to the subject or go start your own blog.....

104 funky chicken  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:44:47am

re: #29 Tamron

Eh, sound pretty moonbattish to me. If we'd just stop chasing terrorists and being so paranoid about airport security, the whole economic collapse would right itself?

105 Salamantis  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:45:13am

re: #90 Lazarus

Govenrment has no business funding science. Volcano monitoring is obviously a huge value, not only to airplane pilots, which people would gladly pay businesses good money to provide. People shouldn't be forced by government to pay for it; let the free market make it happen.

Don't tell me - lemme guess; you supported Ron Paul for president, right?

106 albusteve  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:45:34am

re: #98 Zimriel

I guess the government shouldn't fund a Navy either. If we want our shipping protected, the companies should hire freebooters from Port Royal, Jamaica. Avast, ye hearties!

ahhh..Port Royal is a fascinating place to visit even tho the town is just off the beach in only a few feet of water

107 daledog  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:46:42am

re: #55 Honorary Yooper

A quip about volcano monitoring four years before an election sinks a candidacy? To laugh - hasn't 0bama proved that there is no past indiscretion that can sink a candidacy?

I only have so much outrage I can muster. Holder is talking about letting gitmo detainees free in the lower 48, and I'm supposed to get hot and bothered by an ill-informed comment about volcano monitoring? No thanks.

108 Silvergirl  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:46:47am

re: #27 FurryOldGuyJeans

Some people, such as the army of lgf lizards, can hold in their brains more than one thought at a time. Both issues are critical to the health and long term survival of our Republic as I see it.

We can multi-task like Obama said. But we can actually do it. He's an idle boaster.

109 [deleted]  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:46:49am
110 BenghaziHoops  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:47:17am

re: #103 Maui Girl

Hey, as I was told. Stick to the subject or go start your own blog.....


No No No Maui girl.. You can pretty much talk about anything you want..Charles gets tired of posters telling he what subjects he should post about.
You can pretty much go off topic whenever...

111 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:47:22am

re: #36 acwgusa

That's it, I think I'm re-registering as an independent again.

I have been unaffiliated nearly my entire voting life, and as the years flow past I see more and more reasons why I should stay that way.

112 harlemghost  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:47:35am

LGF has their anti-science blinders on once again ... creationist=anti-science=moron=stupid

Jindal was talking about NON STIMULUS spending in the Stimulus bill.

How hard was that to understand ? He didn't say don't monitor volcanoes. He said the stimulus bill was not the place to fund it.

Given that LGF believes in AGW and then acts like the defender of science as it relates to evolution it really makes me laugh.

AGW=Creationism as far as the science is concerned.

113 tfc3rid  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:47:48am

re: #105 Salamantis

Don't tell me - lemme guess; you supported Ron Paul for president, right?

Government sure does have a role suppoting scientific initiatives in this country... We lead the world is scientific breakthroughs... However, the words of Bobby Jindal will forever doom him...

114 Sharmuta  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:48:26am

re: #97 Maui Girl

Thank you for your responses. I have effectively been muzzled.

Oh, nonsense! No one has muzzled you- you are free to express your opinion, and we are free to agree or disagree with you. In this case, many of us took exception to your comment because we saw it as telling Charles what you think he should be focusing on. There are plenty of previous threads to discuss 0bama, and I assume there will be more in the future.

115 Ayeless in Ghazi  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:48:31am

re: #89 Zimriel

How about a Yellowstone Amusement Park? Set up a concrete platform with some parachutes. When the caldera blows, the people lucky enough to have tickets will get to see the whole of western Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.

The BBC is doing a sublime documentary series on Yellowstone just now. Look out for it on torrent sites, or if you can fool the site into thinking your in the UK, you can watch it here:

[Link: www.bbc.co.uk...]

116 funky chicken  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:49:02am

re: #92 FurryOldGuyJeans

The man is one of the most under-rated and under-appreciated presidents of recent history.

You know who else was extremely impressive when I saw him? Gerald Ford. I was privileged to attend a breakfast where he spoke up in Beaver Creek, CO. At the outset I just thought, "oh well, the breakfast will be good." The guy was 80, and as sharp as a tack. Great physical presence, not clumsy at all, and just straight up impressive in his grasp of issues and speaking ability. He took random questions from the audience and didn't miss a beat.

And SNL made him out to be almost as much of a buffoon as Obama actually is, but won't mock The Obamatelepromptermessiah.

It's just one reason I haven't watched that show or any clips from that show in a decade.

117 Lee Coller  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:49:15am

re: #97 Maui Girl

Sorry, should have put a big OT at the start of my post.
I think Jindal was just trying to make a point regarding the pork in the bill and he used a bad example. He doesn't have to deal with volanic activity in his state so he doesn't understand the importance of monitoring in this case.

Thank you for your responses. I have effectively been muzzled.

I agree he used a bad example, and if this was in a debate or some other non-scripted situation I could even excuse it. However, this was in a prepared speech in response to Obama's first "State of the Union" speech, and it should have been gone over and over. Quite frankly, I'm surprised no one in the Republican party caught that (I presume they review them).

118 daledog  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:49:47am

re: #78 FurryOldGuyJeans

Charles is a big boy. I'm sure he'll take Maui Girl's comments in stride.

119 Desert Dog  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:50:04am

re: #112 harlemghost

LGF has their anti-science blinders on once again ... creationist=anti-science=moron=stupid

Jindal was talking about NON STIMULUS spending in the Stimulus bill.

How hard was that to understand ? He didn't say don't monitor volcanoes. He said the stimulus bill was not the place to fund it.

Given that LGF believes in AGW and then acts like the defender of science as it relates to evolution it really makes me laugh.

AGW=Creationism as far as the science is concerned.

Jindal still looked like a deer in the headlights. The Not Ready For PrimeTime Govenor

120 Ojoe  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:50:50am

B-25s near vesuvius, WW2. Airplanes & ash clouds don't mix well.

Some bombers were damaged by the volcano.

121 Zimriel  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:50:57am

re: #112 harlemghost

Who called #112 for first meltdown?

122 Salamantis  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:51:11am

re: #119 Desert Dog

Jindal still looked like a deer in the headlights. The Not Ready For PrimeTime Govenor

And his speech cadence and inflection sounded so much like Mr. Rogers that I was looking for the sweater vest.

123 Lazarus  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:51:34am

re: #98 Zimriel

I guess the government shouldn't fund a Navy either. If we want our shipping protected, the companies should hire freebooters from Port Royal, Jamaica. Avast, ye hearties!


Defense is a proper function of government -- something the free market cannot provide a rights-respecting society. Government is the only legitimate institution to have the legal sanction to use force. Hence, the military (to protect citizens from attack from abroad), the courts (to resolve legal disputes), and the police (to protect citizens from domestic attack) are the only proper functions of government.

The production of goods and services must be left to the free market.

124 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:51:39am

re: #101 slterry40

The simple fact that he chose the volcano monitoring pork chop out of all the other overt pig projects gives an piercingly deft insight into what the man considers appropriate, and funding true science is right out. Pseudo-science is more of what the man wants.

125 BenghaziHoops  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:51:48am

re: #121 Zimriel

Who called #112 for first meltdown?


Dang it! I was do the under/under on #349.

126 Lazarus  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:51:53am

re: #105 Salamantis

Don't tell me - lemme guess; you supported Ron Paul for president, right?


No, never. He's an anarchist.

127 Sharmuta  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:51:54am

re: #103 Maui Girl

Hey, as I was told. Stick to the subject or go start your own blog.....

No- you were told not to tell your host what to do with his own blog. Plenty of people go off topic on every thread.

128 [deleted]  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:52:01am
129 albusteve  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:52:07am

re: #120 Ojoe

B-25s near vesuvius, WW2. Airplanes & ash clouds don't mix well.

Some bombers were damaged by the volcano.

I love that plane...one bad ass shooter

130 Desert Dog  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:52:21am

re: #122 Salamantis

And his speech cadence and inflection sounded so much like Mr. Rogers that I was looking for the sweater vest.

Considering he is quite intelligent and talks very sharply otherwise. He was too nervous on that speech. Someone should have given him a few pointers before coming on.

131 tfc3rid  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:52:22am

re: #124 FurryOldGuyJeans

The simple fact that he chose the volcano monitoring pork chop out of all the other overt pig projects gives an piercingly deft insight into what the man considers appropriate, and funding true science is right out. Pseudo-science is more of what the man wants.

And then, one month later, there is an eruption, in, of all places, Alaska...

132 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:52:50am

re: #97 Maui Girl

You sure want that martyr cookie.

133 taylork  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:53:04am

It seems to me the issue that Gov. Jindal raised was not necessarily on the merits of Volcano monitoring, but whether it deserved to be in the stimulus.
Is it pork? Maybe not, but I think you'd have a hard to arguing that the economy was saved by monitoring the volcanoes. WE have a housing/credit/banking/finance/debt crisis, please tell me where putting money to volcano monitoring fits into solving that problem?

And how is objecting to it's inclusion in the bill anti-science? There's a difference between saying we need volcano monitoring for safety reasons and saying that volcano monitoring will save the economy. I didn't see him doubt the scientific merits of monitoring, but rather its inclusion in the bill. Would objecting to a $500 million study on salmon mating habits being included in a stimulus bill be considered anti-science, or would it be considered misappropriated spending?

134 bloodnok  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:53:04am

re: #97 Maui Girl

Sorry, should have put a big OT at the start of my post.

I live where there are volcanoes, hurricanes, flooding, AND tsunamis and yes, it's important. But not "immediate" kine important. I was just venting because this is such big news today and I was just watching it on TV and I got all excited and.... Boy, if I can't come here to speak my mind without being castrated, gee whiz. I guess if I don't "stick" to the subject, I should go elsewhere except this is the ONLY blog that I visit and when so inclined, comment on.

I think Jindal was just trying to make a point regarding the pork in the bill and he used a bad example. He doesn't have to deal with volanic activity in his state so he doesn't understand the importance of monitoring in this case.
Personally, he's too narrowminded in certain subject areas and I wouldn't vote for him.

Thank you for your responses. I have effectively been muzzled.

Understood. But I hope you were not surprised by the response given the history of misdirection and "why can't we talk about something else" in anything resembling a science, evolution or ID thread from the anti-science crowd. Feel free to talk about what you want, but be aware that there are certain reactions in certain circumstances. A badly timed post can make people can appear to be different from what they are.

135 funky chicken  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:53:31am

re: #101 slterry40

I don't know that Jindal was slamming Volcano monitoring, so much as he was slamming speding "stimulus" dollars on volcano monitoring. I is hard to argue that there is any stimulative effect to it. The issue was passing the spending under such misleading circumstances.

And the point is, there were literally thousands of pork projects that weren't stimulatlive that were much more worthy of mockery than the one--the only one--that he chose to highlight.

It was either breathtaking stupidity or anti-science bias. Neither choice is a good one for Jindal or his speechwriter.

136 Zimriel  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:53:56am

re: #123 Lazarus

Defense is a proper function of government -- something the free market cannot provide a rights-respecting society. Government is the only legitimate institution to have the legal sanction to use force. Hence, the military (to protect citizens from attack from abroad), the courts (to resolve legal disputes), and the police (to protect citizens from domestic attack) are the only proper functions of government.

The production of goods and services must be left to the free market.

Volcano monitoring falls under the protection of life and property, which is absolutely in the mandate of government. Other examples: epidemic disease control, pest control, flood control, hurricane monitoring, and asteroid monitoring.

137 albusteve  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:54:11am

re: #130 Desert Dog

Considering he is quite intelligent and talks very sharply otherwise. He was too nervous on that speech. Someone should have given him a few pointers before coming on.

simply over his head...no problem with that but he's a kid with a long way to go...he is no rising star imo, just a guy

138 Russkilitlover  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:54:37am

re: #97 Maui Girl


Thank you for your responses. I have effectively been muzzled.

Don't get so huffy. You wanted to change the subject twenty some posts into a new thread. That's just rude. You can wait for an open thread or post spin-offs and maybe get a hat-tip from Charles.

139 Ayeless in Ghazi  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:54:43am

re: #112 harlemghost

Jindal referred to "something called 'volcano monitoring". It isn't hard to understand that that's a derisory and ignorant dismissal of an important activity.

140 Leatherhelmet  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:54:54am

I know the idea is to mock Jindal. That's fair. But putting volcano monitering in a stimulus package designed to create jobs in the next 24 months is ridiculous. It should be a standard appropriations bill along with all the other science that isn't directly related to stimulating the economy now.

141 albusteve  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:55:27am

people sure get windy repeating each other...just an observation

142 Desert Dog  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:55:49am

re: #133 taylork

It seems to me the issue that Gov. Jindal raised was not necessarily on the merits of Volcano monitoring, but whether it deserved to be in the stimulus.
Is it pork? Maybe not, but I think you'd have a hard to arguing that the economy was saved by monitoring the volcanoes. WE have a housing/credit/banking/finance/debt crisis, please tell me where putting money to volcano monitoring fits into solving that problem?

And how is objecting to it's inclusion in the bill anti-science? There's a difference between saying we need volcano monitoring for safety reasons and saying that volcano monitoring will save the economy. I didn't see him doubt the scientific merits of monitoring, but rather its inclusion in the bill. Would objecting to a $500 million study on salmon mating habits being included in a stimulus bill be considered anti-science, or would it be considered misappropriated spending?

I agree with you about the funding for that kind of thing in a stimulus package. But, if you go back and look at Jindal's response, he basically mocked Volcano monitoring like it was some unnecessary waste of money.
He picked the wrong program to attack.

143 funky chicken  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:55:50am

re: #130 Desert Dog

Considering he is quite intelligent and talks very sharply otherwise. He was too nervous on that speech. Someone should have given him a few pointers before coming on.

My opinion? Someone did give him pointers, but they gave him exactly the wrong kind of pointers. He was told to not be himself, but to try to out-Obama the Teleprompter Messiah.

idiotic

144 tfc3rid  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:55:57am

re: #139 Jimmah

Jindal referred to "something called 'volcano monitoring". It isn't hard to understand that that's a derisory and ignorant dismissal of an important activity.

Agreed. I'm glad he didn't go for the 'something called Hurricane Hunting' in his speech.

145 Emerald  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:57:44am

Of all the things in that budget, he couldn't find a better example than something that's a potential lifesaver? If Jindal really wanted to make an example, he should have pointed out some of the pork headed Louisiana.

146 Salamantis  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:57:56am

re: #144 tfc3rid

Agreed. I'm glad he didn't go for the 'something called Hurricane Hunting' in his speech.

Or 'something called earthquake listening in California.'

147 Sharmuta  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:58:00am

re: #133 taylork

So- purchasing new equipment and paying to get it installed isn't a stimulus?

148 albusteve  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:58:14am

re: #144 tfc3rid

Agreed. I'm glad he didn't go for the 'something called Hurricane Hunting' in his speech.

appropriations for VooDoo studies he'd fund as a stimulus....he's a nut

149 Desert Dog  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:58:26am

re: #137 albusteve

simply over his head...no problem with that but he's a kid with a long way to go...he is no rising star imo, just a guy

He comes with some serious negatives. The MSM and dems are drooling over Jindal. It will get real ugly, real fast if he starts to get mentioned as Presidential material. Or, they will talk him up like they did with McCain and then lower the boom when the election is on. Either way, IMHO Bobby Jindal will never be POTUS, nor will Sarah Palin.

150 taylork  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:59:25am

re: #147 Sharmuta

By that logic any spending of money is considered a stimulus, in which case, who cares where the money goes?

151 Lee Coller  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:59:36am

re: #133 taylork

I heard the speech, while I would agree that none of that stuff belonged in a stimulus bill, he clearly called it wasteful spending in his speech. It was a put down, he could have said something like "while many of these projects are useful (such as volcano monitoring) they don't belong in a stimus bill. Instead he said

While some of the projects in the bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending. It includes $300 million to buy new cars for the government, $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a "magnetic levitation" line from Las Vegas to Disneyland, and $140 million for something called "volcano monitoring." Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C.

He clearly wasn't just pointing out things that while worthwhile didn't belong in a stimulus bill.

152 Russkilitlover  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 10:59:55am

re: #147 Sharmuta

So- purchasing new equipment and paying to get it installed isn't a stimulus?

Actually, I would call it a budget item. Much of the so-called Stimulus is just plain ol' spending and should have been done via the budget. It's not a "stimulus" to fund and existing program.

153 Lazarus  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:00:12am

re: #136 Zimriel

Volcano monitoring falls under the protection of life and property, which is absolutely in the mandate of government. Other examples: epidemic disease control, pest control, flood control, hurricane monitoring, and asteroid monitoring.

So does medical care and food safety and building codes and life insurance and on and on. Government doesn't exist to protect our lives from everything that threatens it, it exist to protect our rights. It odes not exist to hand us safety on a silver platter -- that is up to us. The failure to grasp that moral principle is what keeps putting thieves and liars like Obama and Jindal into office.

154 Sharmuta  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:00:50am

re: #152 Russkilitlover

Actually, I would call it a budget item. Much of the so-called Stimulus is just plain ol' spending and should have been done via the budget. It's not a "stimulus" to fund and existing program.

You should watch the video in # 64

155 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:00:56am

re: #133 taylork

There were so much other pork chops that could, and should, have been singled out in this stimulus hog.

156 albusteve  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:01:09am

re: #149 Desert Dog

He comes with some serious negatives. The MSM and dems are drooling over Jindal. It will get real ugly, real fast if he starts to get mentioned as Presidential material. Or, they will talk him up like they did with McCain and then lower the boom when the election is on. Either way, IMHO Bobby Jindal will never be POTUS, nor will Sarah Palin.

agreed on both counts....Steele should just call him up and say you are not presidential, sorry...take him out of the mix....actually you'd think he would do that himself, it's a huge resentment I have for BO that he presumes to be presidential....out of control ego

157 Tamron  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:01:14am

re: #97 Maui Girl

Sorry, should have put a big OT at the start of my post.
Thank you for your responses. I have effectively been muzzled.


Geez, don't give up so easily! This wasn't some kind of final exam, and if you stepped on anyone's toes, so what. You didn't deliberately break the LGF rules and invite Charles' Stinky Stick, so learn and move on. Your basic (Off-Topic) intent made sense, because we certainly do have pressing priorities today that we shouldn't ignore. However, it's a rare day when everyone agrees with you.

--Of course, Maui Girl, if you choose to back off and remain 'castrated' and apologetic, that's your choice, too. It's your call.
.

158 FurryOldGuyJeans  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:04:02am

re: #82 Silvergirl

I got Sputnik Mania from Netflix and watched it yesterday. The parts that showed Eisenhower speaking to the American people were impressive. I heart Eisenhower.

It was a well-done documentary with some fun thrown in.

Put it on hold through my local library, thanks. :)

159 Zimriel  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:04:56am

re: #153 Lazarus

So does medical care and food safety and building codes and life insurance and on and on. Government doesn't exist to protect our lives from everything that threatens it, it exist to protect our rights. It odes not exist to hand us safety on a silver platter -- that is up to us. The failure to grasp that moral principle is what keeps putting thieves and liars like Obama and Jindal into office.

But the federal government DOES exist to protect our lives from threats which affect multiple states. A new disease is treated (rightly) as an invasion by an enemy force (which it is).

None of what you mentioned covers state lines, the way volcanic ash or a smallpox epidemic cross state lines.

160 Salamantis  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:05:51am

re: #153 Lazarus

So does medical care and food safety and building codes and life insurance and on and on. Government doesn't exist to protect our lives from everything that threatens it, it exist to protect our rights. It odes not exist to hand us safety on a silver platter -- that is up to us. The failure to grasp that moral principle is what keeps putting thieves and liars like Obama and Jindal into office.

Umm, doesn't the military protect our lives from those who threaten them? And you were in favor of that, right? But a plague or a flood or a lava flow or a building collapsing in an earthquake kill you just as dead as an enemy's bomb or bullet.

161 Tamron  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:06:59am

re: #104 funky chicken

Eh, sound pretty moonbattish to me. If we'd just stop chasing terrorists and being so paranoid about airport security, the whole economic collapse would right itself?


It's like the blind men describing various parts of the elephant -- read the entire 8-page article, before commenting on just one or two paragraphs.
.

162 Hooray for Captain Spaulding  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:08:27am

I hate to agree with Jindal on this, but he was correct:
Volcano monitoring should have been on the agenda for the 'real' budget, not for a 'stimulus'.

Exactly how volcano monitoring can be excused as a 'stimulus' is beyond belief.

Is it necessary? Sure. Does it 'stimulate' the economy? NFW!

163 taylork  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:08:37am

re: #151 Lee Coller

Thanks for the context of the statement. Was it the best thing to point out? No, but in theory it's inclusion could also be seen as a rhetorical device to emphasize "the eruption of spending." Could have been done better. However, I still wouldn't equate this to being anti-science. As is the criticism with Jindal picking this particular project in his anti-pork speech, their are numerous other instances other than this to pick on Jindal for being "anti-science," and I don't think this one fits

164 funky chicken  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:08:50am

re: #149 Desert Dog

He comes with some serious negatives. The MSM and dems are drooling over Jindal. It will get real ugly, real fast if he starts to get mentioned as Presidential material. Or, they will talk him up like they did with McCain and then lower the boom when the election is on. Either way, IMHO Bobby Jindal will never be POTUS, nor will Sarah Palin.

I'm a pretty big Sarah Palin fan. She scares the hell out of the good old boys in both parties, IMHO because they can't control her. I'm not religious and she is, but she also doesn't strike me as a person who is anxious to cram her religious beliefs down my throat like an awful lot of religious GOPers.

The fundies like her and I like her, so she could potentially be a very attractive compromise candidate.....if and only if the GOP/RNC is ready to control the wacky far right so they don't become the face of the campaign.

But it's a long way till 2012.

165 Sharmuta  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:10:32am

re: #123 Lazarus

The production of goods and services must be left to the free market.

Like computers and the internet.....?

166 [deleted]  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:10:34am
167 SFGoth  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:13:01am

re: #15 HoosierHoops

I can see Bobby's point..Valcano's don't exist..It takes millions of years to form pressures from Continental drift and the great forces within the earth.. You just can't get there in 6000 years.

Yes they exist. God put them there, just like She put the unicorns there to feed on the lava flows. Unicorns like lava flows; they're shiny!

168 Zimriel  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:13:28am

re: #153 Lazarus

Government doesn't exist to protect our lives from everything that threatens it, it exist to protect our rights.

Other people have commented that volcano monitoring doesn't belong in a stimulus / bailout bill. I'm sympathetic to that. I've not downdinged those posts; some of them I've even dinged up.

I downdinged Lazarus's posts here because they assert that a government shouldn't intervene if a freakin' VOLCANO is at risk of erupting. There's libertarianism, and then there's gross irresponsibility. People who believe that are effectively playing Bioshock in real life.

169 Lazarus  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:13:36am

re: #165 Sharmuta

Like computers and the internet.....?

Of course. The government's only proper product is retaliatory force against the violation of its citizens' rights.

170 Oingo Boingo  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:15:07am

I admit that I'm surprised that a so-normally-astute Charles has blown the call here.

Jindal was ABSOLUTELY RIGHT: AS A PART OF A STIMULUS PACKAGE, THE $140 MILLION WAS THE WRONG ITEM AT THE WRONG TIME.

Jindal never said that Volcano Monitoring was a "waste," or that we didn't NEED to monitor volcanoes... or that we shouldn't spend money on the effort. But this smacks of earmark justification, and I expected better from the CinC-LGF.

I recognize that it's difficult to keep all these players together without having a score card. But that a leftist outfit like CBS would dangle this bait and that Charles would swallow it is disappointing.

171 Ayeless in Ghazi  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:15:23am

re: #162 Hooray for Captain Spaulding

I hate to agree with Jindal on this, but he was correct:
Volcano monitoring should have been on the agenda for the 'real' budget, not for a 'stimulus'.

Exactly how volcano monitoring can be excused as a 'stimulus' is beyond belief.

Is it necessary? Sure. Does it 'stimulate' the economy? NFW!

The issue for most people regarding Jindal and volcano monitoring - though the point has been made several times it obviously bears repeating since you didn't get it the first few times - is his contemptuous dismissal of it, in an apparent attempt to play up to anti-science sentiments in the 'republican base'.

172 tokin42  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:15:33am

When did being against billions in pork barrel projects being attached to a "stimulus" bill get labeled as "anti-science"?

Maybe some of you should step back off the edge just a bit, you're acting as loony as gore on his global warming high-horse. Just because you disagree on a spending bill doesn't make someone a religious anti-science zealot.

Btw, seems to me the volcano monitoring system ALREADY IN PLACE (for some of you science zealots that means the stimulus bill DIDN't pay for this) seems to be working pretty well.

173 Lazarus  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:15:51am

re: #168 Zimriel

Other people have commented that volcano monitoring doesn't belong in a stimulus / bailout bill. I'm sympathetic to that. I've not downdinged those posts; some of them I've even dinged up.

I downdinged Lazarus's posts here because they assert that a government shouldn't intervene if a freakin' VOLCANO is at risk of erupting. There's libertarianism, and then there's gross irresponsibility. People who believe that are effectively playing Bioshock in real life.


Then keep putting pragmatic statists into power and enjoy your inescapable socialist paradise. Brother, you asked for it.

174 Sharmuta  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:16:03am

re: #169 Lazarus

You realize computers and the internet were developed by the government's science spending?

175 Salamantis  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:17:08am

re: #170 Oingo Boingo

I admit that I'm surprised that a so-normally-astute Charles has blown the call here.

Jindal was ABSOLUTELY RIGHT: AS A PART OF A STIMULUS PACKAGE, THE $140 MILLION WAS THE WRONG ITEM AT THE WRONG TIME.

Jindal never said that Volcano Monitoring was a "waste," or that we didn't NEED to monitor volcanoes... or that we shouldn't spend money on the effort. But this smacks of earmark justification, and I expected better from the CinC-LGF.

I recognize that it's difficult to keep all these players together without having a score card. But that a leftist outfit like CBS would dangle this bait and that Charles would swallow it is disappointing.

OH YES HE DID!

Check comment #151:

While some of the projects in the bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending. It includes $300 million to buy new cars for the government, $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a "magnetic levitation" line from Las Vegas to Disneyland, and $140 million for something called "volcano monitoring." Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C.

176 Ayeless in Ghazi  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:17:40am

re: #170 Oingo Boingo

re: #172 tokin42

And no matter how many times the point is made, they just keep a comin'.

177 conservativeChick  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:17:40am

This is all Saint Sarahmessiah fault for wanting that volcano to be monitor which is the reason why my man Saint Jindal is in trouble. Those pilots can can just shove that volcano ash up their ass!

/Debbie Schussel/

178 Wendya  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:20:02am

re: #14 Sharmuta

It is the responsibility of the government to protect us in these ways.

Now that was pretty freaking frightening.

179 Charles Johnson  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:20:30am

re: #170 Oingo Boingo

I admit that I'm surprised that a so-normally-astute Charles has blown the call here.

Jindal was ABSOLUTELY RIGHT: AS A PART OF A STIMULUS PACKAGE, THE $140 MILLION WAS THE WRONG ITEM AT THE WRONG TIME.

Jindal never said that Volcano Monitoring was a "waste," or that we didn't NEED to monitor volcanoes... or that we shouldn't spend money on the effort. But this smacks of earmark justification, and I expected better from the CinC-LGF.

I recognize that it's difficult to keep all these players together without having a score card. But that a leftist outfit like CBS would dangle this bait and that Charles would swallow it is disappointing.

Nobody "dangled any bait" in front of me. I found the comment disgusting when Jindal made it, and said so. This is confirmation that it was an ignorant, anti-science remark, from a governor who has the distinction of being the head of the ONLY state in the US where a creationism bill has been signed into law.

It's impossible to defend the GOP against accusations that they are anti-science when people like this are put in front of us as the party's great shining hope for the future. Jindal is a disgrace.

180 Zimriel  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:20:40am

re: #172 tokin42

(for some of you science zealots that means the stimulus bill DIDN't pay for this)

This earmark wasn't even about "science" in the sense of research. It was about the application of the research to an imminent threat (and it WAS imminent; the volcano has in fact erupted).

So calling us out as "science zealots" is off base here. If we're zealots on anything for the purpose of this discussion, we're zealots for saving lives.

181 [deleted]  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:23:20am
182 Charles Johnson  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:24:58am

And by the way, Jindal was way wrong in his claim that $140 million was for volcano monitoring. Wrong by an order of magnitude:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

183 Charles Johnson  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:26:07am

re: #181 harlemghost

I'll make it easier for you to not come to LGF, by removing your account. No need to thank me.

184 Salamantis  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:26:39am

re: #181 harlemghost

Once again; to defend an anti-evolution stance by invoking AGW is like defending anti-Lincolnism by invoking Ron Paul.

185 Lazarus  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:31:48am

re: #160 Salamantis

Umm, doesn't the military protect our lives from those who threaten them? And you were in favor of that, right? But a plague or a flood or a lava flow or a building collapsing in an earthquake kill you just as dead as an enemy's bomb or bullet.


The issue where government is concerned isn't to protect you from nature, it's to protect you from other people. Government exists to protect your freedom, by means of using retaliatory force against aggressors.

186 BenghaziHoops  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:34:10am

re: #174 Sharmuta

You realize computers and the internet were developed by the government's science spending?


I can never forgive Al Gore for inventing the Internet..What was he thinking?
/

187 Lazarus  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:37:30am

re: #174 Sharmuta

You realize computers and the internet were developed by the government's science spending?


Of course I realize it. The fact that government bumbled its way to start something that the free market made great doesn't validate it as morally proper. The ends don't justify the means. Either you believe that the government should leave people free to trade or you don't -- there's no in-between.

188 Salamantis  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:38:40am

re: #185 Lazarus

The issue where government is concerned isn't to protect you from nature, it's to protect you from other people. Government exists to protect your freedom, by means of using retaliatory force against aggressors.

Government exists in part to provide physical safety and security for its citizens - period. And natural disasters kill people just as dead as do foreign aggressors.

189 Ayeless in Ghazi  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:41:37am

re: #184 Salamantis

Thing is there are only a few people here who believe that the case for AGW has been made, (myself being one of them). His characterisation of LGF as generally pro-AGW as well as 'religion-hating' is an obvious give-away that this is just another cesspit dwellers martyrdom piece.

Posing as an atheist who is sickened by the contempt for religion allegedly shown here is yet another giveaway.

190 Annar  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:42:22am

Jindal probably would not have made his stupid remark if Alaska were not involved. It was a failed stealth attack on Palin who he sees as a competitor down the road.

191 Sharmuta  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:43:28am

re: #187 Lazarus

Government's first priority is to protect and defend the citizenry. To me, this includes protecting the citizens as best as possible from the ravages of nature, whether it's a volcano, tornado, hurricane, etc.

192 Tamron  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:47:18am

re: #191 Sharmuta

Government's first priority is to protect and defend the citizenry. To me, this includes protecting the citizens as best as possible from the ravages of nature, whether it's a volcano, tornado, hurricane, etc.


Hey Sharm, that concept can easily go overboard, as vividly illustrated in this cartoon of a COWBOY WHO MEETS ALL OSHA REGULATIONS.
.

193 Salamantis  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:49:22am

re: #192 Tamron

Hey Sharm, that concept can easily go overboard, as vividly illustrated in this cartoon of a COWBOY WHO MEETS ALL OSHA REGULATIONS.
.

But monitoring for earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, hurricanes and tornadoes is most definitely NOT 'go[ing] overboard.'

194 funky chicken  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:49:26am

re: #162 Hooray for Captain Spaulding

I hate to agree with Jindal on this, but he was correct:
Volcano monitoring should have been on the agenda for the 'real' budget, not for a 'stimulus'.

Exactly how volcano monitoring can be excused as a 'stimulus' is beyond belief.

Is it necessary? Sure. Does it 'stimulate' the economy? NFW!

Quite frankly, does any 8 figure government spending plan "stimulate" the economy? NFW!

But, let's repeat the point again. Jindal or his GOP speechwriter chose to mock an actual decent program when they had literally thousands of craptacular ones to choose from. It was either a comment meant to appeal to luddites and cranks, or it was just lazy and stupid.

195 SummerSong  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:50:48am

Karma's a b*tch, eh Mr. Jindal?

196 Zimriel  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:51:57am

re: #189 Jimmah

Thing is there are only a few people here who believe that the case for AGW has been made, (myself being one of them). His characterisation of LGF as generally pro-AGW as well as 'religion-hating' is an obvious give-away that this is just another cesspit dwellers martyrdom piece.

Posing as an atheist who is sickened by the contempt for religion allegedly shown here is yet another giveaway.

Since this thread is dying down, I'll take the bait...

LGF treats AGW as a tentative explanation for climate shifts. Few of us dispute that warming went on in the 1990s. Few of us dispute that there are chemicals which cause a greenhouse effect: chlorofluorocarbons, methane, the silicon / fluorine muck that comes out of microchip factories, etc. No-one disputes that carbon dioxide is one of these gasses (albeit a weak one) and that we've created more of it.

Where there is debate is in whether our CO2 contributes anything noticeable to the greenhouse, and in whether a little more CO2 and/or warming might actually be good for the world's climate. Reasonable people differ on them. I don't think anyone's been hounded on LGF for reasonable disagreement on that much...

197 Charles Johnson  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:55:20am

re: #194 funky chicken

But, let's repeat the point again. Jindal or his GOP speechwriter chose to mock an actual decent program when they had literally thousands of craptacular ones to choose from. It was either a comment meant to appeal to luddites and cranks, or it was just lazy and stupid.

In my opinion, it was definitely intended to appeal to the anti-science wing of the GOP.

198 Salamantis  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:56:55am

Whether or not global warming occurs is not the issue; it does. And so does global cooling, on occasion. The issue is whether humans are the prime cause of it, or whether the lion's share of it is due to the effects of solar cycles. Historically, the latter has proven to be the case.

199 Charles Johnson  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 11:57:14am

re: #197 Charles

... The same way Sarah Palin's dumb remark about "fruit fly research in Paris France" was intended to throw red meat to the anti-science crowd.

200 Lazarus  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:00:15pm

re: #191 Sharmuta

Government's first priority is to protect and defend the citizenry. To me, this includes protecting the citizens as best as possible from the ravages of nature, whether it's a volcano, tornado, hurricane, etc.

You haven't identified what government should defend its citizens from and the principle that makes it true. Should it protect us from cigarette smoke or trans-fatty food or excessively large toilet bowls or "hate speech"? Should it protect certain groups from insults to their religion? Do you recognize a unifying principle that can be applied to distinguish legitimate formas of protection from illegitimate ones or do you just wing it on feelings and folksy bromides?

201 Egregious Philbin  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:01:00pm

Ask the crew of the KLM 727-200 that lost 3 engines at 39,000 feet when they went into Redoubt's plume, damned near lost that plane.

Later, my airline got that plane, "ashes" was its nic.

Big flying piece of crap plane, we flew it till they turned it into beer cans.

202 Ayeless in Ghazi  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:02:20pm

re: #196 Zimriel

Generally agreed. One thing that does annoy me though is that there are still a lot of people here who assume that the only possible motivation for taking AGW seriously is a desire to put an end to free enterprise, consumption etc. I don't want anything like that - nor do I believe that that approach would be effective anyway. I want to see lots of money going into alternative energy - especially nuclear fusion. The fact that this would stop us being dependent on middle east oil would be a bonus.

203 funky chicken  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:02:35pm

re: #199 Charles

... The same way Sarah Palin's dumb remark about "fruit fly research in Paris France" was intended to throw red meat to the anti-science crowd.

lalalalala can't hear you! :-)

you're right of course. It's my last gasp of trying to believe that there's a compromise candidate out there that could be acceptable to the religious fundies and to me, and Palin's a lot more palatable than Jindal.

204 Egregious Philbin  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:02:49pm

damned keyboard.

747-200...geeez

205 BartB  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:03:37pm

I need more info, but the story that started it all suggests that the warning came out after the volcano erupted. Um, that's not a warning, it's a report. Probably didn't take much equipment to figure that out. I am not aware of any prediction of any eruption that stated a specific time for such an event. When you see lava flowing down, dust clouds 11 miles in the air, those are pretty good clues.

As far as asteroid monitors, there was an article a few years back when the star watchers were screaming bloody murder that any country that couldn't come up with $50M/year was too primitive to discuss. The stories that hit my backwater newspaper suggest that amateurs are way ahead of the professionals at finding those things, and they work for free.

206 Zimriel  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:04:04pm

re: #200 Lazarus

You haven't identified what government should defend its citizens from and the principle that makes it true. Should it protect us from cigarette smoke or trans-fatty food or excessively large toilet bowls or "hate speech"? Should it protect certain groups from insults to their religion? Do you recognize a unifying principle that can be applied to distinguish legitimate formas of protection from illegitimate ones or do you just wing it on feelings and folksy bromides?

For God's sake man, pull your head out of your fumarole.

We've already discussed the difference between threats to the whole nation, and "stuff which sucks in life".

207 Tamron  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:07:32pm

re: #193 Salamantis

But monitoring for earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, hurricanes and tornadoes is most definitely NOT 'go[ing] overboard.'


As one who almost got dumped on by Mt. Redoubt's recent flatulence, I certainly do agree with that. The purpose of my small contribution to this subject, however, was in the direction of keeping the government's role at a minimum, while still carrying out its mandate and nothing more.

In keeping with the OSHA COWBOY cartoon, if we put too much trust in the government, then what once was meant to be a simple volcano monitoring
system can grow into flatulence sensors on everyone's belt and smoke sensors on everyone's fireplace chimney, as well as excessive-dust sensors on every dirt road, etc. etc.

Think that's too far-fetched? Check out the PELOSI MOUSE project.

Personally, I'd prefer spending that money on a carload of mouse traps. It's springtime here in Anchorage, and the hungry little critters are making a nuisance of themselves.
.

208 pjaicomo  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:08:48pm

The Republican Party is on its last legs. Since Bush did such an impressive job of mobilizing the evangelicals, the Democrats have taken the hint and moved to a more religious platform. This seems like the perfect opportunity for the Libertarian Party to become one of the big two.

Fingers crossed.

209 Sharmuta  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:09:50pm

re: #205 BartB

It was the monitoring equipment that alerted officials that the volcano was showing signs of activity before it erupted. And it's monitoring like that where the public living in the vicinity has an opportunity to be alerted to the danger that could cost them their lives.

210 Salamantis  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:15:23pm

re: #200 Lazarus

You haven't identified what government should defend its citizens from and the principle that makes it true. Should it protect us from cigarette smoke or trans-fatty food or excessively large toilet bowls or "hate speech"? Should it protect certain groups from insults to their religion? Do you recognize a unifying principle that can be applied to distinguish legitimate formas of protection from illegitimate ones or do you just wing it on feelings and folksy bromides?

So you're defining cigarette smoking and fatty food consumption and too-large toilet bowls and hate speech as natural disasters now, huh?

211 Sharmuta  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:16:16pm

re: #200 Lazarus

You haven't identified what government should defend its citizens from and the principle that makes it true.

The principles were laid out by our Founders- Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are our rights and to secure them, we established our government. Sure, people will claim this or that needs to be added to the list of what we should be protected from, but I think you're being intentionally obtuse in that you know damn well I'm not talking about second-hand smoke, etc.

212 Yashmak  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:19:12pm

re: #200 Lazarus

You haven't identified what government should defend its citizens from and the principle that makes it true. Should it protect us from cigarette smoke or trans-fatty food or excessively large toilet bowls or "hate speech"? Should it protect certain groups from insults to their religion? Do you recognize a unifying principle that can be applied to distinguish legitimate formas of protection from illegitimate ones or do you just wing it on feelings and folksy bromides?

Are you really trying to draw an equivalence between defense of citizens against national disasters, and issues of personal freedom? Really?

213 Neutral President  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:21:15pm

re: #200 Lazarus

Perhaps we need protection from people who take their philosophy to asinine logical extremes so they can sleep better at night knowing they were consistent or "pure"

/only part

214 Lazarus  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:24:04pm

re: #212 Yashmak

Are you really trying to draw an equivalence between defense of citizens against national disasters, and issues of personal freedom? Really?

Metaphysically they are miles apart, but in terms of the proper role of government they are identical. People must be free to determine on their own how they will deal with risk from natural disasters. You cannot escape the fact that the government picks up a gun to rob someone in Maine to pay for muslide damage in California. That is flatly immoral.

215 Lazarus  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:24:45pm

re: #213 ArchangelMichael

Perhaps we need protection from people who take their philosophy to asinine logical extremes so they can sleep better at night knowing they were consistent or "pure"

/only part

Or rational and moral.

216 KansasMom  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:25:20pm

re: #204 Egregious Philbin

damned keyboard.

747-200...geeez

Yes, losing 3 engines on a 727 would be bad news!
Not much better in a 747, either, but at least one was left.
I wonder how much work had to be done on the airplane before it was returned to service.

217 Lazarus  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:28:35pm

The sad fact is that all of you who sanction the mixing of state and economy in this country will live to see the hell that you advocated. You're seeing the start of it now, only you're convinced that you can compromise and tweak your way out of it. And you drag down not only yourselves, but also people who don't deserve that hell.

218 Tamron  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:33:04pm

re: #216 KansasMom

Yes, losing 3 engines on a 727 would be bad news!
Not much better in a 747, either, but at least one was left.
I wonder how much work had to be done on the airplane before it was returned to service.


Actually, it lost all four engines at 27,000 feet and fell two miles before the pilots could restart two of the engines, and then a bit later they were able to restart the other two. LINKY
.

219 Neutral President  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:35:07pm

re: #217 Lazarus

Nice straw man. No here is advocating any such thing. No one here is a commie, nor a fan of socialism, bailouts, Paulson or Geithner. Go play that shit at KOS.

Whether the government has a legitimate role in dealing with natural disasters is not "mixing the state and economy". Even if there's no ideologically pure libertarian justification for it, we live in the United States of America, not Libertopia or Anacapistan.

Between people like you and the conspiracy theory idiots that were legion, it is self-evident to me why I not only walked, but RAN from Libertarian party after being part of it for years.

220 Yashmak  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:36:49pm

re: #214 Lazarus

Metaphysically they are miles apart, but in terms of the proper role of government they are identical. People must be free to determine on their own how they will deal with risk from natural disasters. You cannot escape the fact that the government picks up a gun to rob someone in Maine to pay for muslide damage in California. That is flatly immoral.

What on earth do volcano monitors have to do with people determining how they will deal with the information gleaned from those monitors? Nothing. Without the monitors, they get no chance to make that decision though. . . .which is what sets this apart from every other issue you mentioned.

221 Lazarus  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:39:47pm

re: #220 Yashmak

What on earth do volcano monitors have to do with people determining how they will deal with the information gleaned from those monitors? Nothing. Without the monitors, they get no chance to make that decision though. . . .which is what sets this apart from every other issue you mentioned.

People can privately, voluntarily pool their efforts to produce something that they want (volcano monitors). It's called a "company".

222 Yashmak  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:40:47pm

re: #217 Lazarus

The sad fact is that all of you who sanction the mixing of state and economy in this country will live to see the hell that you advocated. You're seeing the start of it now, only you're convinced that you can compromise and tweak your way out of it. And you drag down not only yourselves, but also people who don't deserve that hell.

You're straight out of your mind. How can you avoid that, and have any sort of federal government whatsoever? You cannot, and you know it. No one here is sanctioning a nanny-state solution. . .LGF regulars pretty much unanimously abhor nanny-state legislation.

But hey, guess we should just dump the military entirely, because it's funded by taxes taken from the citizenry! That's mixing of the economy and state! GADS!

223 Yashmak  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:44:43pm

re: #221 Lazarus

People can privately, voluntarily pool their efforts to produce something that they want (volcano monitors). It's called a "company".

Ah, so we'll let "companies" run everything. I seem to recall that we're in the middle of a financial hellstorm, with "companies" at least partially (if not largely) to blame for its origin. But hey, why not let them run everything? Companies always have our best interests at heart, after all.

224 Lazarus  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:44:43pm

re: #222 Yashmak

You're straight out of your mind. How can you avoid that, and have any sort of federal government whatsoever? You cannot, and you know it. No one here is sanctioning a nanny-state solution. . .LGF regulars pretty much unanimously abhor nanny-state legislation.

But hey, guess we should just dump the military entirely, because it's funded by taxes taken from the citizenry! That's mixing of the economy and state! GADS!

re: #123 Lazarus

Defense is a proper function of government -- something the free market cannot provide a rights-respecting society. Government is the only legitimate institution to have the legal sanction to use force. Hence, the military (to protect citizens from attack from abroad), the courts (to resolve legal disputes), and the police (to protect citizens from domestic attack) are the only proper functions of government.

The production of goods and services must be left to the free market.

225 Sharmuta  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:46:07pm

re: #221 Lazarus

People can privately, voluntarily pool their efforts to produce something that they want (volcano monitors). It's called a "company".

Would the government be out of line then to build a road in your opinion?

226 Neutral President  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:48:09pm

re: #221 Lazarus

People can privately, voluntarily pool their efforts to produce something that they want (volcano monitors). It's called a "company".

I see little profit motive in this particular "field". What am I going to do with a stream of data from seismic monitors? How will it help me and my neighbors create contingency plans. It wont. Their *only* customer will be government at some level, city, county, state, federal. At that point there is little or no difference between the government contracting the work out to a company or university, or doing the work itself. It's still taxpayer money being spent.

227 Yashmak  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:48:32pm

re: #224 Lazarus

Defense is a proper function of government -- something the free market cannot provide a rights-respecting society. Government is the only legitimate institution to have the legal sanction to use force. Hence, the military (to protect citizens from attack from abroad), the courts (to resolve legal disputes), and the police (to protect citizens from domestic attack) are the only proper functions of government.


Defense. . you mean, like warning against volcanic eruption? Warning against such disasters sounds alot like defense to me.

228 Lazarus  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:50:22pm

re: #225 Sharmuta

Would the government be out of line then to build a road in your opinion?

Yes. Government exists to protect rights. Roads are not a right.

229 Lazarus  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:52:20pm

re: #226 ArchangelMichael

I see little profit motive in this particular "field". What am I going to do with a stream of data from seismic monitors? How will it help me and my neighbors create contingency plans. It wont. Their *only* customer will be government at some level, city, county, state, federal. At that point there is little or no difference between the government contracting the work out to a company or university, or doing the work itself. It's still taxpayer money being spent.


What is the profit motive in avoiding harm from natural disasters. Clearly that is a value to people and they will pay good money for it. The alternative is to go to the government and force people to pay for it.

230 lurking faith  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:55:09pm

re: #228 Lazarus

Yes. Government exists to protect rights. Roads are not a right.

The Constitution specifically gives Congress the power to establish Post Offices and Post Roads, you know.

231 Neutral President  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:56:06pm

re: #225 Sharmuta

Would the government be out of line then to build a road in your opinion?

Yes because he's one of those libertardians that drove me insane trying the "I'm more ideologically pure than you" thing while getting 0.00001% in the elections.

They want you to contract out for your own roads, hire your own police and fire departments, etc. The low tax, small government idea is stretched to an insane logical extreme. The good message is drowned out by a symphony of insane.

232 Lazarus  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:56:40pm

The thread itself names the interest worth protecting: airplanes. Airplane owners have all the interest in the world in paying for these potentially lifesaving devices, just as they do with maintained runways, weather reports, etc.

233 Lazarus  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:57:32pm

re: #231 ArchangelMichael

Yes because he's one of those libertardians that drove me insane trying the "I'm more ideologically pure than you" thing while getting 0.00001% in the elections.

They want you to contract out for your own roads, hire your own police and fire departments, etc. The low tax, small government idea is stretched to an insane logical extreme. The good message is drowned out by a symphony of insane.


I'm not a Libertarian. You don't know what you are talking about.

234 Neutral President  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 12:58:49pm

re: #233 Lazarus

I'm not a Libertarian. You don't know what you are talking about.

You are practically quoting from the text book.

235 Emerald  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:00:13pm

re: #233 Lazarus

I'm not a Libertarian. You don't know what you are talking about.

Your arguments, though, are Libertarian. If you agree with their positions, and apparently quite strongly, it's a matter of semantics if you're not actually registered with the party.

236 Lazarus  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:01:32pm

re: #230 lurking faith

The Constitution specifically gives Congress the power to establish Post Offices and Post Roads, you know.

I do know it. Do you know the fallacy of the argument from authority? Just because something has precedence, that doesn't make it right. The Constitution also claims that a black man does not have the full rights of a white man.

237 Neutral President  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:04:09pm

re: #236 Lazarus

I do know it. Do you know the fallacy of the argument from authority? Just because something has precedence, that doesn't make it right. The Constitution also claims that a black man does not have the full rights of a white man.

No it does not and has not for 149 years.

238 Neutral President  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:05:26pm

re: #237 ArchangelMichael

Sorry PIMF

144 Years

239 Sharmuta  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:05:50pm

re: #228 Lazarus

Yes. Government exists to protect rights. Roads are not a right.

Have you read the Constitution?

240 Lazarus  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:06:44pm

re: #235 Emerald

Your arguments, though, are Libertarian. If you agree with their positions, and apparently quite strongly, it's a matter of semantics if you're not actually registered with the party.


Dead wrong. Libertarians have no consistent belief in freedom or in the nature of man's rights. They are an immoral, hopeless soup of vague references to liberty and more anti-government than pro-freedom. That fact that I might agree with a Marxist that the earth goes around the sun does not make me a Marxist.

241 Sharmuta  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:08:12pm

re: #236 Lazarus

That was amended! Having to resort to an outright distortion to try to advance your argument is pathetic.

242 lurking faith  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:10:41pm

re: #236 Lazarus

I do know it. Do you know the fallacy of the argument from authority? Just because something has precedence, that doesn't make it right. The Constitution also claims that a black man does not have the full rights of a white man.

I've studied logic and rhetoric (albeit many years ago). However, when you are arguing about what rights and powers our government has, an appeal to the Constitution, which is the fundamental law of the land, is entirely appropriate. The government has the authority that we grant it, whether you happen to like it or not.

As for your claim that the Constitution does not give blacks the same rights as whites, WTF? Precisely where? And do not name anything that has been amended out of existence.

243 Lazarus  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:10:54pm

re: #239 Sharmuta

Have you read the Constitution?


Of course I have. Have you considered that the Constitution may hold provisions that are violations of American's rights or is it necessarily right in your view merely because it's the Constitution?

244 Lazarus  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:11:49pm

The principle is the same. You say it's valid because it's in the Constitution, and I'm saying that is not what makes an assertion valid.

245 Neutral President  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:12:33pm

re: #240 Lazarus

Dead wrong. Libertarians have no consistent belief in freedom or in the nature of man's rights. They are an immoral, hopeless soup of vague references to liberty and more anti-government than pro-freedom. That fact that I might agree with a Marxist that the earth goes around the sun does not make me a Marxist.

Yes they do and no they are not anti-government. They believe that the only rights which exist are negative rights which are immutable and absolute. The only purpose of government is to protect those rights from aggression and force used to suppress them. Often they take this philosophy to insane and unworkable illogical extremes that are borderline on anarcho-capitalism. Much of what you have posted here this afternoon is as if you have been reading it straight out of this playbook.

246 Lazarus  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:13:28pm

You must appeal to the proper moral principle in asserting that the government should run roads and the mail, not merely point to the Constitution. What is the fact that makes it right?

247 Emerald  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:16:05pm

re: #246 Lazarus

You must appeal to the proper moral principle in asserting that the government should run roads and the mail, not merely point to the Constitution. What is the fact that makes it right?

Actually, I think the onus is on you to show how it's wrong.

248 Lazarus  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:16:50pm

re: #245 ArchangelMichael

Yes they do and no they are not anti-government. They believe that the only rights which exist are negative rights which are immutable and absolute. The only purpose of government is to protect those rights from aggression and force used to suppress them. Often they take this philosophy to insane and unworkable illogical extremes that are borderline on anarcho-capitalism. Much of what you have posted here this afternoon is as if you have been reading it straight out of this playbook.

Libertarians believe, inconsistently, that the U.S. is to blame for Muslim aggression because we have military bases overseas and we "meddle" in their affairs. They believe that abortion should be left up to the states. They believe that anyone should be able to buy and sell drugs, and that adults should be free to have sex with minors. They are dead wrong on all counts, and the list is endless where I disagree with them. I take man's rights seriously, they don't.

249 lurking faith  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:17:11pm

re: #243 Lazarus

Of course I have. Have you considered that the Constitution may hold provisions that are violations of American's rights or is it necessarily right in your view merely because it's the Constitution?


In other words, you think that people have inherent "rights" that the Constitution doesn't protect. Well, if we the people want those additional "rights" protected, then we damned well ought to get them written into the Constitution; otherwise there is no legal recourse if they are violated.

Are you so steeped in Western culture that you think "human rights" are universal? Inherent? Recognized as the same, the whole world over, in every culture? Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

250 Sharmuta  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:18:07pm

re: #243 Lazarus

Of course I have. Have you considered that the Constitution may hold provisions that are violations of American's rights or is it necessarily right in your view merely because it's the Constitution?

The Constitution was designed to limit the power of government. When free men institute a government, they automatically resign some of their rights to the government to act for them. This is why the Constitution limits the power of the federal government- so that the rights we did not resign would remain ours.

251 Lazarus  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:19:07pm

re: #247 Emerald

Actually, I think the onus is on you to show how it's wrong.

Okay. They government should not provide roads and postal services because they violate man's right to engage in free trade. They substitute forced services for ones that people voluntarily provide. That is immoral.

252 KansasMom  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:19:08pm

re: #232 Lazarus

The thread itself names the interest worth protecting: airplanes. Airplane owners have all the interest in the world in paying for these potentially lifesaving devices, just as they do with maintained runways, weather reports, etc.

Not to mention the people in them. And look at what happened on 9/11 when all non-military aircraft in the US were grounded. It caused all manner of chaos.

253 Neutral President  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:19:11pm

re: #244 Lazarus

As far as the current extant US Government, the constitution is where you go to find out if what the government is doing today is ok.

For example, I believe that being forced into jury duty is basically slavery, but it's in the constitution. If I tried to use the "this is slavery" argument as an excuse to get out of it or refuse to appear, they would laugh in my face or I would get arrested. If the government set aside some money for something related to expanding jury duty, I'd be pissed but, it's not unconstitutional, and not outside the range of its legitimate powers. I wouldn't be ranting on a blog about why it was illegal or some shit. I know that I don't live in Mikeotopia and the government doesn't always work the way I would like it to.

254 BartB  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:20:21pm

re: #209 Sharmuta

Um, didn't the ordinary people feel the rumbling, see the smoke? They monitor such things from all over the world in Boulder, CO. Paid for by your tax dollars.
I'm not saying that useful information cannot be learned from monitoring such events, but I'm not ready to concede that they have learned enough so far to do anything really useful. "Further studies are needed" is the last line on any and every government-sponsored research/report/news break. There was a time, not so long ago, when people who were interested in such things paid their own bills.

Now, it seems, if the government doesn't pay the way, the administration is opposed to very important Science. Like Bush, who never prohibited stem cell research, he just declined to fund it.

How much money is enough? "When does the Sex Life of the Polish Tree Frog" (A real government-sponsored research project) justify the cost of kinky researchers studying it?

255 Lazarus  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:21:06pm

re: #250 Sharmuta

The Constitution was designed to limit the power of government. When free men institute a government, they automatically resign some of their rights to the government to act for them. This is why the Constitution limits the power of the federal government- so that the rights we did not resign would remain ours.


No, Sharmuta. Man has no interest in handing over some of his rights in favor of the protection of others. Ultimately, that is a compromise on his freedom. Man establishes a government for one proper purpose: to protect his rights (all of them).

256 Lazarus  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:23:01pm

re: #253 ArchangelMichael

As far as the current extant US Government, the constitution is where you go to find out if what the government is doing today is ok.

For example, I believe that being forced into jury duty is basically slavery, but it's in the constitution. If I tried to use the "this is slavery" argument as an excuse to get out of it or refuse to appear, they would laugh in my face or I would get arrested. If the government set aside some money for something related to expanding jury duty, I'd be pissed but, it's not unconstitutional, and not outside the range of its legitimate powers. I wouldn't be ranting on a blog about why it was illegal or some shit. I know that I don't live in Mikeotopia and the government doesn't always work the way I would like it to.


Does the fact that the Constitution says you have to do something mean that it's right? Is that where you get morality from? If so, then why ever repeal or challenge anything in the Constitution? It sounds like you think it's infallible.

257 Sharmuta  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:23:37pm

re: #254 BartB

Bullshit- there is plenty of wasteful spending from our government to disagree with, but spending it in the effort to save American lives from natural disasters should not be one of them.

258 Sharmuta  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:24:01pm

re: #255 Lazarus

You're an anarchist!

259 KansasMom  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:24:32pm

re: #218 Tamron

Nice link, thank you. I'm curious what kind of damage an ash cloud would cause. Is it abrasive or corrosive, or hot enough to scald the paint and nonmetallic structure? I'm sure the ash can get into systems and cause clogs or fires too.
I can't imagine how you would inspect a plane after an incident like that without practically doing a tear-down.

260 Lazarus  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:25:07pm

re: #252 KansasMom

Not to mention the people in them. And look at what happened on 9/11 when all non-military aircraft in the US were grounded. It caused all manner of chaos.

Absolutely. I would rather have the freedom to weigh safe airlines who pay for volcano monitors versus those who don't, rather than have the money forcibly taken from me and those who don't want to pay for it. That is everyone's right.

261 Emerald  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:25:39pm

re: #251 Lazarus

Okay. They government should not provide roads and postal services because they violate man's right to engage in free trade.


How? UPS, Fed-Ex and a number of smaller companies exist which deliver mail. They are successful and profitable. Having a federal system in no way hampers their ability to conduct business.

They substitute forced services for ones that people voluntarily provide. That is immoral.


Please provide a logical, workable system where private roads could exist. If I want to get from Maryland to Ohio, how would I do it? How many different roads would that require if there was no organized, central road system? How, as a driver, would I ever find the information on the different condition of the various private roads? What fees they charge? A system of private roads is inefficient, cost-prohibitive, and would actually result in much higher prices and would be a barrier to free trade.

Your ideal solution is typical of ideals everywhere - absolutely unworkable in reality.

262 Lazarus  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:25:58pm

re: #258 Sharmuta

You're an anarchist!

You apprently can't read or think, so I will leave you to your orgy of pragmatic statism.

263 Neutral President  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:26:58pm

re: #248 Lazarus

Libertarians believe, inconsistently, that the U.S. is to blame for Muslim aggression because we have military bases overseas and we "meddle" in their affairs. They believe that abortion should be left up to the states. They believe that anyone should be able to buy and sell drugs, and that adults should be free to have sex with minors. They are dead wrong on all counts, and the list is endless where I disagree with them. I take man's rights seriously, they don't.

And when taken to an asinine extreme all of those things are consistent with their philosophy. Wrong, for the most part in my opinion, (which is why I'm not one of them anymore), but still consistent. If you believe in near-anarchocapitalism when it comes to domestic spending, but are ok with us blowing money all over the world in what they would call "foreign adventures", and disagree with the other things you listed, they would think you weren't being consistent and that you were not taking rights seriously.

264 KansasMom  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:27:33pm

re: #255 Lazarus

And how is the govt supposed to protect our rights if it doesn't have the right to arrest people who break laws and take away our freedom?

265 lurking faith  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:31:38pm

re: #246 Lazarus

You must appeal to the proper moral principle in asserting that the government should run roads and the mail, not merely point to the Constitution. What is the fact that makes it right?

Our founders wrote the LAW to provide those things they considered important in promoting the general welfare. If you can convince enough people that running roads and mail is not the proper province of the federal government, then you can amend the Constitution to remove that authority.

The government is not a moral entity; it is a practical application (set forth as law) of what we think should be done for the public good. There are services and products (mainly infrastructure) that we need to function as a society that cannot be well provided by any for-profit entity.

Food safety is one example. You think that is not a proper function of the government. However, before government regulation, foods were commonly adulterated with dangerous substances. You were at risk every time you ate or drank something you didn't grow yourself. What private company could really fix that situation? But perhaps you don't care - let the poor city dwellers die in agony!

Tell me how that is moral, to refuse to provide a life-and-death service that cannot reasonably be provided for in any other way.

266 Jordan  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:35:04pm

I rarely get the chance to comment, but I came home at lunch just now and wanted to add my two cents....

I think, along with most of the posters, that Gov. Jindal blew it when he picked out volcano monitoring as "wasteful" as part of that joke of a stimulus. Volcano monitoring along with monitoring for other natural disasters like hurricanes and floods is a vital role of the federal government. There were so many more wasteful and useless provisions that he should have singled and slammed the Dems for supporting. Why he chose this is beyond me. I don't think it was anti-science, just really, really stupid.

Living 220 miles SSW of Redoubt and wondering if my town will be covered in ash tomorrow might skewer my perspective on this matter a bit, but I have no problem with funding NOAA to track any hurricanes headed for Louisiana or the NWS observing the Red River for spring flooding. I sure as hell have a problem with millions going for the Kennedy Memorial whatever the hell it is in Massachusetts.

Such an opportunity blown, no pun intended, Gov. Jindal.

ps. the Alaska Volcano Observatory is a great site to stay updated and get some fantastic images of Redoubt.

267 Emerald  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:35:07pm

re: #254 BartB


I'm not saying that useful information cannot be learned from monitoring such events, but I'm not ready to concede that they have learned enough so far to do anything really useful.


The 1985 Nevado del Ruiz eruption in Columbia killed 23,000 people.

The 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption in the US killed 57.

The government evacuated the area around one of these prior to the eruption based on volcanic monitoring. Care to guess which one?

268 lurking faith  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:36:25pm

re: #255 Lazarus

No, Sharmuta. Man has no interest in handing over some of his rights in favor of the protection of others. Ultimately, that is a compromise on his freedom. Man establishes a government for one proper purpose: to protect his rights (all of them).


The demand for no compromise of your freedom is adolescent. Nobody has perfect freedom. Your freedom impinges on mine, and vice versa.

You cannot build a functional society if the only thing you focus on is your rights. You also have responsibilities.

269 Emerald  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:38:17pm

re: #268 lurking faith

The demand for no compromise of your freedom is adolescent. Nobody has perfect freedom. Your freedom impinges on mine, and vice versa.

You cannot build a functional society if the only thing you focus on is your rights. You also have responsibilities.

I can't agree with you enough. You've nailed the heart of the issue. The role of a function society cannot be based on the juvenile assertion that there be no limits to freedom. Inevitably, people will have different views on what is a freedom, who it belongs to, and chaos is the logical result.

270 Jordan  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:38:42pm

#259 Kansas Mom,

Volcanic ash is actually superfine grit that will scour and strip engines. Imagine taking a Brillo pad and putting it in your blender, then dumping the contents in your car's air intake. You'll get a burned out engine in no time.

271 Sharmuta  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:44:03pm

re: #262 Lazarus

I'm not the one who is confused about the role and scope of government- you are. It is true that in forming a government, free men relinquish some of their rights to the government. However- you are coming across as one who thinks the government has no rights. They do- they have the rights we granted them in the Constitution. Without the US government's right to provide for our defense and general welfare, you are talking anarchy.

272 Neutral President  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:44:39pm

re: #258 Sharmuta

You're an anarchist!

I have a feeling like he's a Christo-anarchist for lack of a better term. It was like he was fishing for a moral argument about the ultimate source of rights in the last couple of posts. As an agnostic I was not going to play that game with him.

273 Neutral President  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:46:53pm

re: #270 Jordan

#259 Kansas Mom,

Volcanic ash is actually superfine grit that will scour and strip engines. Imagine taking a Brillo pad and putting it in your blender, then dumping the contents in your car's air intake. You'll get a burned out engine in no time.

I've heard it's basically tiny shards of glass and it will kill you in about 10-15 minutes if you breathe enough of it in.

274 Sharmuta  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:47:31pm

Hi, {Jordan}!

275 lurking faith  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:48:50pm

re: #269 Emerald

I can't agree with you enough. You've nailed the heart of the issue. The role of a function society cannot be based on the juvenile assertion that there be no limits to freedom. Inevitably, people will have different views on what is a freedom, who it belongs to, and chaos is the logical result.

Thanks. Lazarus claims not to be an anarchist, but much of what he's advocating would result in anarchy if put into practice. He certainly does not seem to understand what the Constitution is for, or that it provides the government precisely those powers that the people (through representatives) chose to hand over to the government. And if we decide that we want to change it, there's this thing called an "Amendment."

276 Zimriel  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 1:51:45pm

re: #272 ArchangelMichael

I have a feeling like he's a Christo-anarchist for lack of a better term. It was like he was fishing for a moral argument about the ultimate source of rights in the last couple of posts. As an agnostic I was not going to play that game with him.

I got the impression he was a stubborn donkey who was shown that he was wrong, and then lowered his ears and refused to budge.

He rephrased his braying in a multitude of different ways, but he still ended up sounding like a jackass.

277 Alberta Oil Peon  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 2:10:40pm

re: #101 slterry40

I don't know that Jindal was slamming Volcano monitoring, so much as he was slamming speding "stimulus" dollars on volcano monitoring. I is hard to argue that there is any stimulative effect to it. The issue was passing the spending under such misleading circumstances.

In order to monitor volcanoes, you have to hire people, and buy or lease equipment. That money goes into the economy. How can it possibly not be stimulus?

Monitoring natural hazards should be a standard and completely uncontroversial part of any rational government's program spending, any more than weather forecasting is.

But given that all too many of the stimulus package measures constitute pissing money down a rathole, it's actually refreshing to find a few that might actually benefit people.

Had Jindal actually seized on some truly wasteful items of pork upon which to base his comments, he'd be getting praised here, instead of laughed at. He slipped, and let his agenda show.

278 Leatherhelmet  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 2:32:28pm

Sorry, but being a conservative is supposed to mean frugal with spending whether it be science or anything else.

Palin's "fruit-fly" or Jindal's "volcano-monitering" comments were not to spur "anti-science" creationists but to get those concerned with government spending up in arms. The "tea parties" are about spending, notjust science spending.

Creationists aren't concerned about fruit flies or volcanos, they are concerned with evolution. If Palin or Jindal would have said the money would go toward evolution studies, I might for one second believe your point. Otherwise, you are now saying Palin and Jindal are completely anti-science and that Republicans in general are anti-science AND anytime a republican doesn't jump and down for joy over science spending they are anti-science, which is malarkey.

279 Leatherhelmet  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 2:39:16pm

It is kind of funny to see people defending $140,000,000 in volcano monitoring/equipment/travel/placing the monitors on volcanoes/etc. and saying that he should have found something else to criticize.

Every other thing mention gets defended by somebody with the same logic. Isn't it important to get tatoos off of gangs so that are no longer stigmatized? Republicans don't really "care" about gang members do they?
How about $30 million for the salt marsh mouse? Republicans don't really "care" about saving species, do they? They must be anti-science.

280 Zimriel  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 2:59:37pm

re: #279 Leatherhelmet

How brave of you to parachute into a dead thread, when everyone is commenting elsewhere...

and that Republicans in general are anti-science AND anytime a republican doesn't jump and down for joy over science spending they are anti-science, which is malarkey.

I agree that the way you have represented our opinion is "malarkey".

It is kind of funny to see people defending $140,000,000 in volcano monitoring/equipment/travel/placing the monitors on volcanoes/etc. and saying that he should have found something else to criticize.

Jindal could have given any speech he wanted. That he chose to pick on volcano monitoring was a tactical blunder on his part, especially since the volcano went active soon after he did it.

281 FabioC.  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 3:11:56pm

I gather that the Constitution of the United States grants some powers to the government while it enumerates the rights of the people. The government has no rights, but certain powers.

At the practical level, volcanic eruptions are events with a level of destructiveness that can be close to nuclear explosions. The difference is that the former are natural and uncontrollable, while the latter can only be the result of human actions, whether hostil or negligent.

Probably I have read too much Goldstein lately, but here's a question. Where is the evidence, or at least clues, that Jindal was intentionally pandering to the anti-science fraction (which I am quite sure exists) of the Republican party?

282 Sharmuta  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 3:20:56pm

re: #281 FabioC.

Probably I have read too much Goldstein lately, but here's a question. Where is the evidence, or at least clues, that Jindal was intentionally pandering to the anti-science fraction (which I am quite sure exists) of the Republican party?

He signed a bill into law allowing pseudo-science into Louisiana's science classrooms.

283 lurking faith  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 3:23:45pm

re: #281 FabioC.

No, the Constitution does NOT enumerate the rights of the people. The bill of rights (the first ten amendments) do set forth certain specific rights of the people, as a safety measure against government's tendency to expand its power, but the Constitution clearly states that all rights not specifially granted to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states, or the people.

As has been discussed here at LGF at length, Jindal and his team picked out a small, cheap-by-government standards, and actually useful research project to mock. There were lots of truly hideous, expensive, and wasteful projects earmarked that he could have mocked, but instead he mocked a science project. And since he's a creationist who signed the forced teaching of creationism into law, he does not deserve the benefit of the doubt regarding his attitude towards science.

284 FabioC.  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 3:40:35pm

re: #283 lurking faith

Yes, Bill of Rights... I tend to use Constitution to indicate the whole document. My imprecision.

My arguments still stands tho: the government has no rights.

Why do I insist? Only to be clear about terminology, really.

As for Jindal's intent, yes, I agree there's some serious evidence towards his pandering to the anti-science basis.

285 Lee Coller  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 4:39:17pm

re: #258 Sharmuta

You're an anarchist!

Actually I think Lazarus is a Ferengi.

286 NukeAtomrod  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 4:55:14pm

I think, think, Jindal's point was: Volcano monitoring is not Economic Stimulus. That's the sort of thing that should be in the Federal Budget.

I could be wrong, but that's an argument that makes sense. Jindal's speech was not his brightest moment. I think it's possible that he just didn't explain himself thoroughly.

287 Lee Coller  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 5:13:26pm

re: #286 NukeAtomrod

I think, think, Jindal's point was: Volcano monitoring is not Economic Stimulus. That's the sort of thing that should be in the Federal Budget.

I could be wrong, but that's an argument that makes sense. Jindal's speech was not his brightest moment. I think it's possible that he just didn't explain himself thoroughly.

See my #151, he clearly put it under the category of wasteful spending, like levtrains and buying a bunch of new cars for the government.

288 Basho  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 5:14:06pm

re: #202 Jimmah

One thing that does annoy me though is that there are still a lot of people here who assume that the only possible motivation for taking AGW seriously is a desire to put an end to free enterprise, consumption etc.

i work once in texas laboratory. pelosi and her army of nasa commies use agw to conquer world. jimmah will be first in commie democrat labor camp

289 Yashmak  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 5:14:14pm

re: #286 NukeAtomrod

I think, think, Jindal's point was: Volcano monitoring is not Economic Stimulus. That's the sort of thing that should be in the Federal Budget.

If that's what he meant, then I can't entirely disagree with you. Unfortunately, that's not how it came across.

290 Yashmak  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 5:23:46pm

re: #255 Lazarus

No, Sharmuta. Man has no interest in handing over some of his rights in favor of the protection of others. Ultimately, that is a compromise on his freedom. Man establishes a government for one proper purpose: to protect his rights (all of them).

No government can be established under which the any member of the citizenry is free to do whatever it wishes without governmental interference of any sort. You cannot govern anarchy, and you are trying to suggest otherwise. It's nonsense. Laws, by their nature, restrict. And until human nature makes a sudden, and drastic sea change for the better, you're going to need rule of law.

291 kynna  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 5:32:06pm

I don't see how a volcano erupting is proof positive that the federal government should be funding volcano monitoring from the 'stimulus bill'. Shouldn't it be a specific appropriation for that specific state?

Yes, Jindal dorked up his response, and I took part in ripping him a new one right after, but if he'd made his point better I think more people would agree with him on this particular point than disagree. JMO.

292 Salamantis  Tue, Mar 24, 2009 6:44:46pm

re: #291 kynna

I don't see how a volcano erupting is proof positive that the federal government should be funding volcano monitoring from the 'stimulus bill'. Shouldn't it be a specific appropriation for that specific state?

Yes, Jindal dorked up his response, and I took part in ripping him a new one right after, but if he'd made his point better I think more people would agree with him on this particular point than disagree. JMO.

His choice of example and the way he posed that example would indiocate that he was trying to make another point; that volcano monitoring was itself an example of wasteful spending. On this point, he is completely, totally, utterly WRONG.

293 donk1100  Wed, Mar 25, 2009 3:39:10am

for 140 million ,,,i will build a house on the hill across from the volcano,,,,when i hear the big boom i will broadcast it on 121.5 and every plane in the air will know. it is just my contribution

294 BartB  Wed, Mar 25, 2009 11:44:03pm

re: #267 Emerald

If I Recall Correctly, Mt. St. Helen rumbled and belched for weeks before it blew. What sort of seismology equipment does it take to detect that? Anyone who needed the government to tell them that some sort of danger existed is just too dumb to live.
It seems to be relatively rare that a volcano just decides to blow its top without substantial warning that even a liberal can detect. Whether they are bright enough to follow the animals and get out of town is quite another area.
I repeat: HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH, and WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY IT?
I have never been rescued from the side of a mountain, nor from a rowboat at sea, because I DON'T GO THERE. If I did, I would expect to get billed for the rescue.
In Colorado Springs, there is a beautiful park with many very big rocks in it. There are signs saying that you should not climb the rocks unless you have the proper equipment and know what you are doing. Every year, several people need to be rescued; a few fall and die. The ones that live are given a major bill for the costs. They complain. They go to jail until they pay. Tough - sucks to be you. They city taxpayers don't have to pay to get those fools down. That's the way such things should be done.

295 Salamantis  Thu, Mar 26, 2009 12:25:42am

re: #294 BartB

And a lot of times -in fact the vast majority of times - they rumble and that's it; they do nothing else. So do we evacuate people for every rumble, forbid them from living anywhere near, or leave them to their own devices?

No, we monitor the volcanoes, and only evacuate folks when danger is indicated.

296 BartB  Thu, Mar 26, 2009 11:09:54pm

re: #295 Salamantis

re: #295 Salamantis

And a lot of times -in fact the vast majority of times - they rumble and that's it; they do nothing else. So do we evacuate people for every rumble, forbid them from living anywhere near, or leave them to their own devices?

No, we monitor the volcanoes, and only evacuate folks when danger is indicated.

I don't have any numbers, perhaps you do. How may eruptions have been accurately predicted as opposed to being reported afterward?

My guess is that the pyroclastic flows arrived before any of the predictions.

297 Salamantis  Fri, Mar 27, 2009 5:04:25am

re: #296 BartB

re: #295 Salamantis

I don't have any numbers, perhaps you do. How may eruptions have been accurately predicted as opposed to being reported afterward?

My guess is that the pyroclastic flows arrived before any of the predictions.

Mt. St. Helens ring any bells?


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 61 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 163 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1