And he is fairly dumb for a Rhodes Scholar if he thinks that comical banter with Castner and Carty could be good in any way. Those two buffoons are like a couple of 12 year olds.
Hey Senator, at least Rachel Maddow has never needed to pay for women. Too bad we cannot say the same for you. You have just made yourself an even bigger embarrassment for Louisiana. What is next?
He has since come out with a lame apology letter to Maddow. Of course, he still means what he said. He is just sorry he said it.
Hey conservatives, how many more examples do you need to not vote for him again? What more must this “man” do to lose favor with you?
And the guy who took the picture of the eroding sand berm did not want to be identified for fear that the Governor’s office would enact some sort of retribution for daring to give the public information. You know, because Jindal likes to operate in secret.
Can someone please give us a moratorium on Jindal? That would seem to be the best thing for our state.
Unemployment benefits are typically extended in a bad economy. It seems obvious to me that in a bad economy, jobs would be harder to come by. So the need to extend benefits would only exist in a time where jobs are harder to find and more people would be unemployed for longer periods of time.
Basically, the Heritage Foundation are suggesting that the cause of the longer durations of unemployment is the extension of unemployment benefits. It is extremely more likely that the cause of longer durations of unemployment would be the bad economy.
But as i said, common sense doesn’t seem to be very common any more.
Maybe they don’t like his dredging the remnants of the barrier islands, destroying part of the last remaining natural storm surge protection, and want to get the hell out of dodge before the next hurricane comes. Maybe he doesn’t like how Jindal eels it necessary to hide every piece of information that comes through his office and feels dirty working for the super secretive Jindal. Either way, I don’t blame them one bit.
Now, the end result is good for couples in Massachusetts who (if the ruling survives any appeals) will be able to get benefits from their same sex spouses. However, it could be bad for couples in California who are fighting for their right to marry the people that they love. If that ruling holds, how would Prop 8 be overturned?
Now, a ruling in another case stated that the “Defense of Marriage Act” is also unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
So in one hand, one judge ruled that states have the right* to define marriage and in the other hand the same judge ruled that gay marriage bans violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The judge could have made the argument for the latter in both cases. So at the moment, these rulings seem to be contradictory. However, I will hope that it is the latter argument that wins out so couples who happen to be of the same gender can finally stop being treated as second class citizens.
* States do not have rights, they have powers. Read the 10th amendment.
Although the dredging doesn’t leave a visible change at the surface, it alters the subsurface profile of an area and reduces the bottom friction that formerly absorbed hydraulic energy during approaching storm surges.
He also states:
I’m not alone in challenging this project, although I can afford to be more vocal than most of my science colleagues. Many of them, along with their employers, fear the financial consequences of alienating Gov. Jindal, who tolerates no criticism of his sand berm fantasy.
There are also several other points made in the article that are a must read. Anybody who cares about the long term health of our coast needs to read it. Jindal is not only putting his political ambitions ahead of logic, reason, common sense and science. He is putting his political ambitions ahead of the safety and lives of the citizens of southeast Louisiana who could be hit harder by the stronger storm surges that will come because of his irresponsible dredging. It is time that the citizens of Louisiana stop worshiping the wunderkind as if he was the second coming (or first coming for those of us who are Jewish). It is time that we demand our governor to stop rejecting good science.
The reason given by the Corps is given here and includes their suggestion that by placing the rock walls that they would drive water into new channels and increase coastal erosion.
Kyle Plotkin, Bobby Jindal’s spokesperson stated:
Only a government bureaucrat would say rocks are more harmful to our water and marshes than oil. The Corps took weeks to review the plan only to reject it today - and this denial is another unfortunate example of the federal government’s lack of urgency in this war to protect our coast
Right, because the best way to make sure that the coast doesn’t get damaged with oil is to make the coast erode so it is no longer there.
Perhaps if Bobby Jindal and his administration had taken time to actually study ways to protect our coast without destroying it instead of whining and complaining about how ineffective the federal response is, we could have a solution instead of constant clashes between the state and the feds.
This almost makes me think that Jindal would rather have our coastline damaged so the GOP could have something big to attack Obama on in 2012 instead of working with him to solve his problem so they lose an opportunity to attack Democrats.
Tune in to WSLA 1560 AM in New Orleans or KKAY 1590 Baton Rouge to GT Mornings on Friday July 2nd to hear me on the radio from 7am - 8am. I will be bringing up the renewed open primary law in Louisiana for Federal Elections, John Boehner’s silly idea that a moratorium is bad but a “pause” is ok, and why the tea party movement is pushing for a repeal of the 17th amendment.
And, as always, I am always looking for sponsors so I can have my own radio show. If you are interested in becoming a sponsor, let me know.
Republican Senators have been holding up immigration reform because they clam that we cannot do that until we “secure the border”. I have a couple questions.
A) It is impossible to prove that everyone who is crossing the border is crossing legally. You cannot guarantee that the border is 100% secure. All you can do is set up security measures. What level of security measures will satisfy the Republican Party that we have a “secure border”?
B) When you say that you want the border secured, you seem to always talk about the border with Mexico. Do you think that people who cross the border with Canada less dangerous?
More importantly…
C) WHY are we incapable of increasing troops and technology on the border in order to make it more secure WHILE we also put into place comprehensive immigration reform that deals with the millions of people who are already here? I mean, this is America. We are capable of doing anything we set our minds to. The idea that we cannot accomplish comprehensive border polices that include increased border security is both laughable and unAmerican.
