Quoting nautirony: This is what Ann Althouse writes about those who criticize Jindal in her blog.

"Why are all these people so confident that they are not manifesting racism?"

The new AP/GfK poll shows that the public is optimistic that the stimulus plan will work, and they approve the performance of Democrats on the economy -- and disapprove of the Republicans.

The poll was conducted from February 12-17, during the final days of the compromise process for the stimulus bill. So we now have a look at public opinion during the period when it became clear that the bill was going to pass:

• 52% of Americans approve of the stimulus bill, with 41% disapproving. And the public is confident by a 54%-45% margin that the plan will result in significant improvement.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey, released Friday, also suggests that six in 10 support the economic stimulus package that Obama signed into law Tuesday.

Large majorities of Americans in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll support his $787 billion economic stimulus package and the recently unveiled $75 billion plan to stem mortgage foreclosures. Nearly seven in 10 poll respondents said Obama is delivering on his pledge to bring needed change to Washington, and about eight in 10 said he is meeting or exceeding their expectations.

Quoting nautirony: Are people supposed to defend themselves though the prosecution has not shown any evidence that they have committed a crime?

"You can't go on TV and counter Obama with that," said radio host Laura Ingraham.

Philip Klein of the American Spectator said Jindal seemed more like a high school student delivering his valedictory speech than a prospective new GOP leader.

Jindal's Response...

Awful. He walked out like an earnest dork and has a weird inflection, trying to sound upbeat and sunny when it's clearly not his natural metier. It sounds false, and he looks false.

I don't care how much of a star Jindal is, America doesn't elect somewhat-off dorks as president.

“Awful” is Ace’s word but I’m in no mood to disagree. And neither are most HA commenters, judging from this mammoth thread.

I thought his delivery was weak. The content will play well with

Quoting Simon Willard: ...

I am stunned by Eve's claim that DC residents yearning to vote are trapped there against their will. If this is a problem, surely funding can be found to relocate them. I am also shocked that a scholar of Ann's credentials should think it "unfair" that residents of this Federal district should not participate at the Federal level.

Quoting nautirony: This is what Ann Althouse writes about those who criticize Jindal in her blog. [...]

"Why are all these people so confident that they are not manifesting racism?"

Are people supposed to defend themselves though the prosecution has not shown any evidence that they have committed a crime?

Why make sense when we can make controversy, eh?

Quoting nautirony: As the anti-drug TV spots say:

This is a law school professor's brain.

This is a law school professor's brain after listening to Rush (and admiring his tactics after a few years).

Quoting rcocean: The racism shown by liberals toward Jindal was disgusting. Chris Matthews (famed for his sexist and racist comments) stated " The Republicans had outsourced" their response. This was after contemptuously snorting "Oh, God" when Jindal came out. How many liberals denounced Matthews? Almost none.

Like most liberal men, Matthews can't tolerate independent men of color - or women. To liberals, people of color need to know their place - and stay on the liberal plantation.

Funny how all the liberal sensitivity toward "racism" and "sexism" disappears when conservatives are involved.

Quoting AemJeff: DC is far more just another US city than it is a Federal seat. The only reason to deny that many people a vote, is because of the (likely accurate) perception that they'd be, largely, liberal.

Quoting Simon Willard: I disagree. To be a Federal seat is the raison d'etre.

I have no concern whether Washingtonians are liberals or ditto-heads. If they live there, it is by choice, and they must respect the special status of the District.

Quoting rcocean: Funny how all the liberal sensitivity toward "racism" and "sexism" disappears when conservatives are involved.

Quoting AemJeff: rc shows up once again in a hit&run during an Althouse dvlog, to repeat some partisan slander, and generally show us the overall quality of the Althouse commentariat.

Say "Hi" to Trooper York/Sgt Shulz for us, 'kay?

Quoting AemJeff: If they live there, it may be because they were born there. They may not want to leave their homes in order to participate in the democratic process of the country of their birth. The vast majority have no direct link to the Federal Government.

Quoting Simon Willard: Oh, come on. This is silly stuff -- you can't vote as a child. At 18 you become an adult, you leave your parents' house, and you gain the right to vote -- outside the District.

But you're missing the main point. To live in DC is to be linked to the Federal Government. Americans across the continent see DC as a special place. If you DC residents don't understand that, someone has failed you in your early education.

Quoting rcocean: The racism shown by liberals toward Jindal was disgusting. Chris Matthews (famed for his sexist and racist comments) stated " The Republicans had outsourced" their response. This was after contemptuously snorting "Oh, God" when Jindal came out. How many liberals denounced Matthews? Almost none.

Like most liberal men, Matthews can't tolerate independent men of color - or women. To liberals, people of color need to know their place - and stay on the liberal plantation.

Funny how all the liberal sensitivity toward "racism" and "sexism" disappears when conservatives are involved.

Quoting AemJeff: Simon, we disagree about what's silly. You making a specious argument that denies an important right to a large number of people.

Quoting rcocean: BJ:

As for Trooper York, say hello yourselves - he has a blog. He'd appreciate a battle of wits - even though you're unarmed.

Quoting Simon Willard: You may call my concerns "symbolic", but not "specious". Like the flag and the constitution, DC is one of those concepts that binds us together as one nation. The District is enormously revered in the American mind. When that ceases to be true (and there is always a lot of discomfort in the heartland about the power of "Washington"), it will be to the detriment of the Union and those who favor a strong central government.

By the way, what's next? Why don't you want two Senators? Why don't you want a DC governor and state house? How about a star on the flag? Don't forget the state quarter!

Americans across the continent see DC as a special place.

The District is enormously revered in the American mind.

If you DC residents don't understand that, someone

Quoting bjkeefe: Is that what passes for fresh, original humor among wingnuts?

I'm sure Pooper York appreciates your attempt to drive traffic. I've looked at his blog a couple of times in the past and never thought it was worth the bother. I see he now apparently has narrowed his interest to pictures of pastry and David Hasselhoff. In sum: too stupid even for lulz.

When he grows a pair, maybe he'll register over here, instead of letting you squeak on his behalf.

Quoting AemJeff: and arguing that the specific status of the city-at-large would have an effect on that reverence is un-evidenced, at best.

Quoting themightypuck: I think Ann is more entertaining on the sauce.

Quoting Simon Willard: OK -- on this one point -- I'll admit to you that I'm stretching the argument.

Also, I have just learned that there is a DC quarter in the works.

However, you conveniently fail to answer my "slippery slope" question -- how about Senators?

Let's also note that DC is not unique in it's restriction from participation in Federal elections. There are a number of little islands... And 4 Million Puerto Ricans.

Quoting Simon Willard: However, you conveniently fail to answer my "slippery slope" question -- how about Senators?

Quoting tigerinexile: Re Puerto Rican statehood -- Congress tried to give it to them.

But they keep on voting it down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_...us_referendums

Who knows, maybe next time people will finally vote in favor...

Quoting Bobby G: Hilarious. I wish more people would blogginghead on the sauce.

Seriously, it's the commenters who turn investors off of BhTV?

Quoting Bobby G: Seriously, it's the commenters who turn investors off of BhTV?

Quoting bjkeefe: Is this like opposing same-sex marriage and using the suggestion that if legalized, it will lead to bestiality?

Slippery-slope arguments are unconvincing.

Quoting Simon Willard: If it's unfair that DC residents can't vote, why isn't it unfair that they have no Senate representation? Where does the "fairness" come from?

Quoting Simon Willard: Yeah,actually I was thinking DC voting would lead to bestialty. ;-)

Actually, I agree that slippery-slope arguments are unconvincing. But I'm trying to make a serious point: If it's unfair that DC residents can't vote, why isn't it unfair that they have no Senate representation? Where does the "fairness" come from?

Quoting rcocean: Like most liberal men, Matthews can't tolerate independent men of color - or women...

...To liberals, people of color need to know their place - and stay on the liberal plantation...

Quoting AemJeff: How can somebody possibly rise to be a law professor and have huge problems stumbling over simple logical fallacies?

Quoting bjkeefe: [Aside] To drift to your argument above, I do want to mention that it's my view that there are lots of people who live there who really don't have a realistic choice of leaving. I'm talking both the poor and those who have to be there if they want to be involved with the government, the media outlets that are based there, the lobbying groups, etc. These latter are all conducting the people's business, and we should thank them for that (the obvious crooks aside, of course), not tell them, "Hey, you don't like it? Move!" [/Aside]

There's a second element of fairness here, too. As I understand it, to make this thing happen, the deal includes another seat for Utah, to offset the almost certain additional Democratic vote the DC seat would represent. Apart from Nate Silver, I can't see why anyone would have a problem with this, from the point of view of fairness.

Quoting Simon Willard: Sorry, but I think you're inverting the logic. It's precisely because they are conducting the people's business that they are excluded from the vote.

As for the Utah thing - that's a canard. I don't want Utah to have any more representation than they are entitled to under the Constitution based on population.

Quoting bjkeefe: As of this moment, Ann has five different clips of herself talking in this diavlog posted on her blog.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Quoting AemJeff: How can somebody possibly rise to be a law professor and have huge problems stumbling over simple logical fallacies?

Top rightblogger Instapundit said, "it's much bigger news when 200 people with jobs who've never protested turn out, than when 20,000 of the usual suspects organized by ACORN or ANSWER march with preprinted signs."

Quoting Lemon Sorbet: rcocean, I'm of the John McWhorter school of thought on crying racism but I agree with you on Chris Matthews. I haven't watched him in eons because I cannot stand his brand of political "discussion" but it's my belief that he harbours a patronizing and dismissive view of minorities that has only been tempered recently with the ascension of Obama. Also, I find many of his comments and motivations petty, and if there is one trait that I cannot stand to watch (especially in men, yeah I know, it's reverse sexism but I can't help it) it's pettiness in action.

Quoting bjkeefe: [...]

Quoting AemJeff: Can I get a "Heh. Indeed"? As goes PJTV, so goes Glenn's self respect, I think.

BTW, don't miss Michelle's take on the grassroots gravitas of the tea-party movement.

The "Tea Bag"-ing is thing is a gift, pure comedy gold. I had seen none of it before your post.

Quoting JoeK: BTW, I think all conservatives that had criticized Limbaugh in the past, now since he gave his address to American people on Saturday, have egg on their face.

As others have said, that speech will be talked about for years and even decades.

Quoting JoeK: BTW, I think all conservatives that had criticized Limbaugh in the past, now since he gave his address to American people on Saturday, have egg on their face.

As others have said, that speech will be talked about for years and even decades.

Quoting cragger: You asked above where does unfairness come from if DC residents are not allowed to vote. Surely it comes from the very idea of democracy - one person one vote, each with an equal voice in determining how we are governed.. There is nothing in this concept that is dependant on where one might live. No?

Your suggestion that because some people in DC are doing the nation's business they (all) should be excluded from the vote is proposing a political theory distinct from traditional concepts of democracy that is quite unique to my knowledge. Senators, reps, presidents, mayors, governors, they all get the vote now. Does this prohibition only apply to "little people"? Or should elected officials and everyone else who works for the government "doing the people's business" be also excluded? The police, public works employees, the military?

Quoting Simon Willard: First, I don't know why you bring up the subject of pure democracy, because I'm sure you agree the idea that each person has an equal voice in government is quite far from the US system, right? Geography is built-in. How many people vote for those two Wyoming Senators?

As for your main point, I am not advocating excluding the little people, but I am advocating excluding the District of Columbia. In our representative democracy, decisions at the Federal level are not made by the little people; they are made by representatives of states and congressional districts. To have a representative of the Federal district itself goes against the very purpose of having a Federal district. In that case, we should just give up on the whole idea and make New York our capital city. It's the great population center, and this would bring the power of the Federal government closer to the influence of that population.

When my local NPR radio station has a contest, they always say "employees of this station are not eligible". Think about it. Why would they make a such a show of treating their employees so unfairly?

Quoting cragger: I bring up the subject of democracy since that is after all the theory upon which our government is founded. The screwball electoral college system we have, and the non-proportional senatorial representation is just the result of a power play by the smaller colonies at the time of the formation of the US. You are pointing out a flaw in our electoral system and using that as a justification for another flaw. I must admit I'm mystified as to what principle you think that represents that we should follow.

Quoting popcorn_karate: Proximity is important. the closer you are to decision makers, the more likely it is that you will be heard - its not that hard to figure this out, really.

Quoting popcorn_karate: we have a republic, not a democracy. the "flaw" you see is a design feature. the people that founded this country were rather terrified of what "mob rule" would look like, so they put a lot of barriers in the way. Originally, Senators were elected by state legislators, not by "the people". you should read some of the debates that were happening at the time to get some perspective on this.

as for D.C. - Simon Willard expressed most of my views. Proximity is important. the closer you are to decision makers, the more likely it is that you will be heard - its not that hard to figure this out, really. That is why D.C. is the way it is. no state gets the obvious power advantage that comes from having the capitol in your state. giving them federal representation is simply a terrible idea - and that whole utah idea sounds like the poster child for why "bipartisanship" can often be the worst option - two bad ideas instead of even one good one.

Quoting Lyle: Jindal is only 37 years old and is too young to start burning down bridges. Not sure that means he's weak, but it does mean he's smart and is looking ahead of himself.

Quoting osmium: Yes, I get that. But a strong person will not let other people define him. He won't need Rush Limbaugh's help, at any stage in his career. I'm not saying Jindal has made any mistakes or anything. I just disagree with what Ann said about him needing Rush Limbaugh's protection. Overprotection and fussing don't do much for strength.

Quoting AemJeff: I'm hoping support for creationist incursions into public education is ultimately counted as a big mistake.

Quoting Lyle: I think Jindal's argument about the "creationist" bill passed in Louisiana will be that it's about questioning and having an open mind, i.e., to challenge the religion of science. The bill isn't anti-evolution, but pro-creationism. He, Jindal, like the Catholic Church accepts the theory of evolution, but does believe that God created the world. President Obama believes this as well, as a practicing Christian himself.

Nobody knows why we are all here or what the point is. I think that's Jindal's point, i.e., that Science does have its limits.

I'm an agnostic. I think the Prophet Mohammed, for example, was just a man, wasn't a prophet, and only wanted a better life for himself and his relations by gaining as much power as he could. Islam, like Christianity, is a lot of nonsense. However, I still don't know why the Earth exists and why it's running around Space. I'm not sure why Space itself exists either.

Quoting Lyle: Ann Althouse isn't a right-winger. She voted for Obama. She's also socially liberal. Like any serious human being, she's nuanced.

But Rush gets energy from the attention. If only those under 40 folks would actually listen to his radio show and find out what he's really saying. It's easy to hate him from afar, to regard him as poison, not to be touched at all. I felt that way myself. But if they were to overcome that barrier and actually listen — as I did — they might get hooked in — as I did.
--Ann Althouse

I'm not an agnostic. I'm a believer. As a practicing Christian, I can still see the "Intelligent Design" movement for the fraud that it is.

Evolution is taught in schools because it's an essential model of understanding for almost everything we know about biology and medicine. Teaching religious-based notions of how this process might have been guided (by God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or what-have-you) does NOTHING to enhance our understanding of science.

Scientific theory is about finding useful, falsifiable models for understanding as much as we can about the nature of the universe. The Scientific Method is one of the greatest gifts of the Age of Enlightenment, and is a big part of why our society has advanced as far as it has. The fact that using the Scientific Method has led us down a path which challenges our articles of faith is a problem to be worked out within our churches, not a provocation to crap all over sound science in the name of "open mindedness."

it allows for teachers and students to discuss the fact that nobody knows how the world was created.

Quoting Lyle: I don't think Bobby Jindal disagrees with you. Evolutionary theory and the scientific method are what are taught in Louisiana's schools. The bill that was passed doesn't prevent the teaching of evolution or pooh-pooh evolution, it allows for teachers and students to discuss the fact that nobody knows how the world was created.

The bill is not meant as an anti-science bill, even if it offends scientists, non-believers, or whomever. Again, like President Obama, Bobby Jindal believes in evolution and that God created the world. Many Americans, including, many scientists believe the same.

Quoting Lyle: Actually there isn't a definitive scientific explanation about why the world exists. There are explanations, and these explanations are scientific, but they are not the definitive truth.

A problem with the creationism aspect of science, or the origins of the species, is that it touches on religion or religion touches on it. It's one thing to teach the scientific method and physics, but when you get into how the world was created science doesn't have all the answers.

Really, I think, this bill is much to do about nothing. It's mere symbolism for votes... of the hey, you evangelicals or believers have a right to believe what you believe, and you can teach your kids that too.

Quoting Lyle: Haha... that doesn't mean she's a right-winger. That just means she enjoys listening to Rush Limbaugh. Liberals do in fact listen to him and even call into the show.

Quoting ledocs: reacting to Jindal’s truly extraterrestrial body language and posture? Jindal’s walk to the podium scared the shit out of me. He looked like a Frankenstein monster who had just been coaxed out of his slumber.

Quoting ledocs: Althouse is sort of entertaining in her provocativeness, but qua public intellectual she lacks heft.

Quoting Lyle: No I don't cause I'm not trying to prove anything. You say Ann Althouse is a right-winger and the only evidence you've proffered is that she enjoys listening to Rush Limbaugh. That alone does not prove your assertion.

Why did she vote for Barack Obama if she's a "right-winger"? Why does she support gay marriage if she's a "right-winger"?

Show me some better evidence. Show me something that refutes the above facts.

Quoting Lyle: Yes, except that the origins of the world or universe isn't science, it's belief.

Quoting Lyle: Yes, except that the origins of the world or universe isn't science, it's belief.

Quoting Lyle: No, of course not. I've been talking about the origin of the species as well.

Quoting Lyle: Yeah, I know, but the origin of the universe still ain't scientific fact.

Quoting Lyle: You misunderstand the law I think. They aren't going to be teaching kids the answer to the meaning of life. They aren't going to even be teaching that God created the world like Obama and Jindal believe. Evolutionary theory will be continued to be taught as it has been. The law simply allows teachers and students to have a broader conversation about the origins of life if they decide to (whenever that might come up in a class).

Quoting Lyle: Yes, they, the believers, believe God created the world. That's what I mean by the creation of the world. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Bobby Jindal all believe the world was created by God. I'm using their own language.

I think you need to read slower and more carefully, before drawing conclusions about people. You judge people very easily and in a very shallow way. Perhaps before telling people they're ignorant or stupid, you should actually have some evidence to back up your assertion ...

Bob Wright is against people like you. Perhaps you should wear a "What would Bob do?" bracelet so you want fall into making so many superficial, judgmental posts like you oft do.

Quoting Lyle: Yes, except that the origins of the world or universe isn't science, it's belief.

Perhaps you should wear a "What would Bob do?"

Quoting bjkeefe: No liberals listen to Rush, except those who are watchdogging him. (Or out of a sense of momentary curiosity, as Tom Wittmann points out.)

Quoting Lyle: The origin of the world isn't fact though. We do not know why we exist. Agnostics do not claim to know, that's what makes them agnostic. One can not say for sure that God doesn't exist and didn't create the world. One can only believe that God does not exist and did not create the world, because there is no definitive proof that says otherwise.

Quoting Lyle: One doesn't believe that when they jump out of an airplane that they will fall back down to earth, one knows they will fall back down to Earth. Gravity happens, evolution happens... but we do not know why we exist.

This IS a shallow concept, and therefore not that difficult to understand.

Quoting Lyle: You might try taking your own advice actually, because believing that you will hit the earth after jumping off a building is not the same as believing that God created the world or didn't create the world. Cause if you jump off a building, you will in fact reach Earth shortly thereafter. I'm not sure we'll ever discover that God exists or doesn't exist by doing anything.

I'm positive you haven't followed what I've been saying at all. I'm neither anti-evolution or science. I haven't even said if I favor the law in Louisiana or don't. I've only tried to point out that the law is something other than what it has been described by people. I've made arguments I think Jindal and others will make when asked to defend it.

I also enjoy reminding people that Barack Obama believes Jesus Christ was the son of God, believes he died for all our sins, and then gently floated up to heaven three days later, just like Bobby Jindal does. I also enjoy reminding people that Bobby Jindal doesn't refute evolutionary theory or the scientific method, which is oft stated, but yet

Quoting Lyle: I think there is a difference. One doesn't believe that when they jump out of an airplane that they will fall back down to earth, one knows they will fall back down to Earth. Gravity happens, evolution happens...
.

Quoting pampl: You could say the same thing about gravity. You can not say for sure that God doesn't exist and push stuff towards the ground, there is no definitive proof that matter attracts matter. Your talk about "definitive proof" and "fact" completely misunderstands the nature of science

Quoting Lyle: The only thing I'd disagree with him on is that many believers (maybe he doesn't disagree with me on this though), like Bobby Jindal and Barack Obama, recognize evolution as a truth or a reality. They believe the universe and ultimately life on Earth was created by a deity, which of course means evolution as well.

We have nothing comparable yet (that rises to the level of scientific theory) to explain that God doesn't exist or that God didn't create

Quoting Lyle: The middle part, trying to explain science to me... I quite aware of all that. I know what science is. I haven't been arguing in disagreement to any of that.

I've been arguing what I think Jindal and others will argue in defense of the law he passed, because Jindal will have to stand up and defend this law to the nation one day.

Quoting popcorn_karate: Pampl,

I think you are misunderstanding science, not Lyle (much as it pains me to make such a statement).

Lyle's point is that Science has not not and never will, tell us the ultimate how and why of existence. saying it started with the "big bang" does not in any way have any implication about the existence or not of god, and whether or not god had anything to do with said big bang.

the fact that many people think science has something to say about the existence of god is just proof that religious thinking is really hard to escape. If you want to substitute science for some other religion that is your choice - its just a bad choice like choosing your screw driver to pound in a nail.