How many jobs will monitoring volcanoes generate? This was to an economic stimulus bill remember?
Well, had Jindal made that particular point, we'd be having a different conversation.
But he didn't make that point. He acted like he didn't know what "volcano monitoring" meant, and used it as an example of
wasteful spending. "Instead of monitoring volcanoes," he said, "what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington."
So he doesn't know what "volcano monitoring" means, but he's sure that it's a waste of money.
That makes him an idiot for at least two reasons: #1, not figuring out what "volcano monitoring" means, and #2, thinking that this was a good example to use. (I could think of many more reasons it makes him an idiot, such as the way he shot his political career in the foot, but I don't want to get sidetracked.)
Had he said something like, "Monitoring volcanoes might be a good idea, but it doesn't belong in an economic stimulus bill," he might have a point. But that's simply not what happened.
This reminds of during the campaign, when John McCain repeatedly mentioned the funding of a "$3 million overhead projector" (his words) as an example of wasteful government spending. Well, that "overhead projector" was a specialized piece of educational equipment that really
did cost several million dollars.
He could have chosen any one of a number of different funding initiatives, but he went for the "overhead projector." At first, it might have been simply a mistake on the part of his campaign, but he
repeated it during at least two debates, and at multiple campaign stops. At that point, it became obvious that the McCain campaign was intentionally using the phrase "overhead projector" to give a dishonest, inaccurate impression of what was actually being funded.
And the JREF Republicans leapt to his defense. "Why is it the
government's job to fund that?" they asked. Well, had McCain made that point, we would've been having a different conversation.
But he
didn't make that point. Instead, he opted for the dishonest route, to try and make the project seem like a several-million-dollar investment in a $50 piece of office equipment. That was what infuriated scientists like Phil Plait, as well as many members of this forum.
As a result, McCain looked like an idiot, and probably lost quite a number of votes as a result.
Look, I appreciate the desire to stick up for the guy on your "team." We all do it, to one extent or another. We all occasionally overlook flaws in our friends, family, people we admire, and organizations or movements that we support. (It's not limited to politics; a friend of some of the local skeptics here is a proud fan of the Cincinatti Bengals. Now, you talk about overlooking
flaws...)
But there are times when someone says something
really stupid, and as much as you'd like to pretend he was saying something different, the reality is,
what he said was still stupid.
You can't put lipstick on a pig* and expect it to be anything but a pig. You can pretend it was "out of context" or that he was trying to make the case that it didn't belong in a stimulus bill, but no matter how you twist it, that's not what happened. Jindal tried to make the case that "something called volcano monitoring" was a frivolous waste of federal funds.
And
that makes him an idiot no matter
who's team he's on. More than that, it makes the people who read and approved his speech idiots, too.
(* Sorry, couldn't resist.)
