Once was douche, but now he's found.

At least he knows how to give props when deserved.

The administration's recovery efforts [for hurricane Katrina] have drawn praise from Republicans, too, including Gov. Bobby Jindal. Jindal has credited Obama's team with bringing a more practical and flexible approach to the process. "There's a sense of momentum and a desire to get things done," he said in August.

So, it looks like he decided to play nice and except some help from the federal government, after all. I gave Bobby a hard time back when he gave us all a laugh at a dorky looking Indian-dude with a Louisiana accent and cheesy smile (see below) trying to out-pimp Obama, after the president's speech. Well, Bobby, I know how to give props too. Enjoy it, though, I doubt there'll be much more.

Stupid, stupid conservatives.

I was raised on the supposed stupidity of liberals and the glory of the conservative movement, born in the 70’s and a child of the 80’s. But as I age so does the conviction that, although there might have been some truth to that reality (while Clinton didn’t help, the sex-capades-impeachment was a early warning signal of the neo-con-absurdity to come), it certainly isn’t the case anymore. In fairness to conservatives whom I respect (family members included), this is mostly in regards to the rise and proliferation of the conservative media.

Cases in point:

Fox front man Bill O'Reilly was beside himself over the handshake, indignantly claiming that former President Richard Nixon never met with Chinese leader Mao Zedong. Perhaps O'Reilly would benefit from a refresher in Political History 101, because it's a well-established fact that Nixon met with Mao in 1972, a point Keith Olbermann drove home in naming O'Reilly "Worst Person" on Thursday for his historically challenged comment.

Conservative leader and radio host Rush Limbaugh asserted, "If you look at what we are calling torture, you have to laugh," said that "if somebody can be water-tortured six times a day, then it isn't torture," and claimed that "appeasers" have "water[ed] down" definition of torture like "NOW gang" did with definition of domestic violence.

County Fair, the official Media Matters blog, last week called out the conservative Washington Times for its bizarre, fact-free editorial that claimed President Obama's job approval ratings were "in the basement" and that he was historically unpopular. True Alice-in-Wonderland stuff since recent polling data suggest the exact opposite about the president's popularity. Well, it took a whole week, but the Times finally walked back that nonsense retracting the entire editorial noting, "We hereby retract our April 28 editorial 'Barack's in the basement' because we misapplied several polling comparisons of various presidents after their first 100 days in office." That's being generous when you consider the entire piece was completely made up.

[W]hen Gov. John Baldacci (D) signed a marriage equality law, Maine became the fifth state to allow legal same-sex marriage. On the Christian Broadcasting Network today, Pat Robertson responded by claiming that the “ultimate conclusion” of legalizing same-sex marriage would be the legalization of polygamy, bestiality, child molestation and pedophilia. “You mark my words, this is just the beginning in a long downward slide in relation to all the things that we consider to be abhorrent,” said Robertson.

Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Rush Limbaugh Show guest host Mark Steyn criticized the president as an elitist because he ordered a burger with "spicy mustard" or "Dijon mustard." Hannity claimed that Obama ordered a "fancy burger" with a "very special condiment," while Steyn asserted Obama is trying "to enlighten us" through his order. Ingraham asked of Obama: "What kind of man orders a cheeseburger without ketchup but Dijon mustard? ... The guy orders a cheeseburger without ketchup? What is that?" In their discussions of Obama's burger order, Hannity, Ingraham, and Steyn all referenced a Grey Poupon commercial featuring actors portraying wealthy British men expressing desire for the mustard.

David Feherty, in an essay for a Dallas magazine wrote, "From my own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East, I can tell you this, though: despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

As Olbermann has explained, the point would not be to watch Hannity suffer. Rather, it would be to prove to him — and perhaps his viewers — that waterboarding is in fact “cruel, inhuman” torture — that it is what an adviser on terrorism to the departments of Homeland Security, Special Operations, and Intelligence called “slow-motion suffocation.”

Indeed, the 2005 torture memo written by Steven Bradbury required the CIA to have a tracheotomy kit on hand to revive a detainee who had effectively drowned:

[A] detainee could suffer spasms of the larynx that would prevent him from breathing even when the application of water is stopped and the detainee is returned to an upright position. In the event of such spasms, a qualified physician would immediately intervene to address the problem, and, if necessary, the intervening physician would perform a tracheotomy. …we are informed that the necessary emergency medical equipment is always present - although not visible to the detainee — during any application of the waterboard.

A footnote to the memo warns, “for reasons of physical fatigue or psychological resignation, the subject may simply give up, allowing excessive filling of the airways,” and “aggressive medical intervention” may be required to restore breathing. And yet Hannity continues to insist, “It’s not drowning.”

Indeed, the fact that conservatives and the Task Force in particular feel the need to lie about the history and traditions surrounding the NDP [National Day of Prayer—ew!] suggests that they are less concerned with promoting prayer in America than they are with taking every possible opportunity to “slam Obama” for political gain.

I wish it were true that Obama was in some way—any way—anti-religious, but unfortunately that’s just not the case. In fact, as I suggested about Bobby Jindal’s necessary conversion to an Anglo-religion, so too did Obama need the sanctification and protection of J.C. to win the White House. Half black? Sure. Absentee father? Well, OK. Muslim absentee father? Ummm… Community organizer. What’s that? But (god forbid) had Obama ever waiver in his devotion to some imaginary Father and his ghost-Son—not to be confused with “Ghost-Dad,” the ridiculously horrible Bill Cosby movie—he could have forgotten about the presidency.

Why? Because the equally ridiculously horrible reality in this country, indeed most the world, is that, even as religion slowly ebbs from humanity and even the transgendered get civil rights, atheism remains a pox in our houses.

"Peggy, that boy ain't right." -Hank Hill, from King of the Hill

Figuring out how best to assess--alright, brutalize--the boy-wonder from down under, Bobby Jindal, I found my self simply shaking my head in bewilderment; much like the fictional cartoon character quoted above talking about his son Bobby (seen above).

As for Jindal, the odd mix of brown face and good 'ol boy voice, smothered in the down home temperament of George W., made for the uneasy digestion of my dinner, to say the least.

Perhaps not so coincidentally, Jindal admits to changing his name--no surprise there--to Bobby because of another, albeit corporal, character from the TV show, The Brady Bunch. Any wonder whether or not Jindal would have been voted in sans Bobby? Me thinks not.

(Hm, makes you wonder if Barack should have changed his name? What would it have been? Tommy Obama? Kinda rolls of the tongue, no?)

Admittedly, I feel like I missed the boat on this guy--sorry folks. I had just recently decided how much I hate this guy--one of two new-brown-hopes for the Republican Party--when he goes and self-destructs before I had a clean shot at him. I mean, jeez, what's the point now? It's not as fun to kick a person when they're down. Well, not as fun. So, lets, shall we?

If you've watched any news in the last week, you'd be aware of the slow-speaking, seemingly, perpetually sweaty-palmed, pre-adolescent voiced governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal. Much like his fellow douche-bag from the north, who came from relative anonymity to "revitalize" the GOP in the presidential election, his bark turned out to be equally as flaccid as his bite. And like Sarah Palin before him, it didn't take long for the loud, proud swaggering of this good 'ol fashioned American to fizzle into the same old individualist, government-hating conservatism.

And though the guy seems like he might be a few IQ points higher than his female comrade (and Bush Jr. as well), he still speaks out of the same half-smirk, and with the same condescending, pedantic-while-still-trying-to-be-friends tone, rife with snarky jingoism, of his predecessor. Like: I don't really blame for listening to some guy named Hussein and wanting to believe him because you're sooo stupid; but now I'm going to tell you why he's full of shit and why I'm right.

It's to be expected that some Republican would have to rebut anything and everything that the President (that's still so cool to write) said, even if the suggestion was that the sky is blue and the grass is green. "The man must be color blind!" no doubt would be barked from the ill-fitted suit of some politico. And, indeed, that's just what happened.

Only, what usually comes next, didn't. Instead of the partisan seesaw of point/counterpoint about who was more effective or "won" spilling over into the media and blog-world, what's surprising is the evisceration, by even Fox News and the like, of his response to Obama's speech to Congress last week. He's been getting it at both ends, so to speak.

Of course, from a feckless media, focused on the drama of the political tennis match rather than content of these types of things, coverage was utterly devoid of any political analysis of Obama's speech or Jindal's rebuttal, other than the latter's image creation ala Regan-retread.

And here I was thinking there'd be no one to kick around for awhile.

But thankfully the GOP is always quick to proffer up some born-again, intelligent design-believing, anti-abortion/pro-death penalty (every life is sacred, huh?) moralist that appeals, more and more exclusively, to older white people of non-urban areas.

A slogan during an election run for Jindal was "Bubbas for Bobby." This ain't your (my) Jewish bubba, either. There's a 60 Minutes interview with Jindal and his wife in which they said they consider themselves non-Indian and tried to downplay their ethnicity. As well, he converted to Christianity from his family's Hindu background. (Wonder if the Bubbas would've accepted Jindal if his conversion was from Islam, which also is heavily represented in his parent's native India.)

But what my real ire is reserved for: the governor of Louisiana saying that a) the lesson from Katrina is that big government sucks (I can't even deal with how fucked this is in this post) and b) although he is philosophically opposed to President Obama's Stimulus plan (including the tax increase of less than 5% for only 5% of the country; really only done effectively by the expiring Bush II's tax cuts, bringing the rich back to Regan-era levels), he plans on taking almost all the money allotted to his state--all except additional unemployment benefits.

For the many thousands of newly out of work people, at no fault of their own, in his state, Jindal is unwilling to help them in this supposed economic crisis because that violates his other ideological relic from Economics 101. (Dick.) Namely, that unemployment benefits decrease the incentive to find new work, or so the theory goes. You know, much like the proverbial, Pavlovian dog. Only I don't feel that we're dogs. What we have to come to realize is that this is exactly what the neo-liberal economist thinks of human decision making.

It's as if Jindal, and others (but I'll get to them another time), went to the first class or read the first few chapters of a freshman Econ class, and then stopped (indeed, there's no lacking of these scratch-the-surface intellectuals on the left too; like only reading Marx's The Communist Manifesto and not Capital).

I have a decent perspective on this as I am currently taking a freshman Econ class, but, I've already gotten farther than that. And, although I can prove to you with graphs and curves and calculus (oh my!) why, in the perfect world of the free-market economy, the minimum-wage is actually bad for workers--that doesn't make it so in our not-so-perfect world.

Of course, to hear Jindal speak, it sounds as if he's hardly taking anything from the stimulus bill, you know, because it's sooo bad for the country. But the fact is, it will be more like + 97% what's offered to the state. Hypocritical dick.