Will this guy be the GOP's VP candidate?

[gs]

Is Bobby Jindal -- Who May Be On McCain's Veep Shortlist -- An Exorcist?

Bobby Jindal, the 36-year old governor of Louisiana, is being taken seriously by the national press as a candidate on the shortlist to be John McCain's Vice President. No one doubts that he's a political prodigy -- his impressive resume includes stints as president of the state university system, a Congressman and now governor. But one of Jindal's job titles hasn't gotten much attention -- and it just might prompt a few questions if his Veep candidacy gains steam: Exorcist. As others noted during his 2003 and 2007 gubernatorial campaigns (see update), in an essay Jindal wrote in 1994 for the New Oxford Review, a serious right-wing Catholic journal, Jindal narrated a bizarre story of a personal encounter with a demon, in which he participated in an exorcism with a group of college friends. And not only did they cast out the supernatural spirit that had possessed his friend, Jindal wrote that he believes that their ritual may well have cured her cancer. Reading the article leaves no doubt that Jindal -- who graduated from Brown University in 1991, was a Rhodes Scholar, and had been accepted at Yale Law School and Harvard Medical School when he wrote the essay -- was completely serious about the encounter. He even said the experience "reaffirmed" his faith. Jindal's affection for battling demons never surfaced during Jindal's failed run for governor in 2003 or his successful one in 2007. The state Dems did make an issue in 2007 out of Jindal's extreme Catholicism and his view of Protestant tenets as heretical, but the effort provoked a backlash among voters who thought the assault was religious bigotry. So Dems didn't make an issue out of Jindal's experiment. But Jindal's battle with the dark forces may become an issue should his Veep candidacy proceed. While it's hardly a blockbuster revelation, it could provide fodder for bloggers and late-night comics to turn his candidacy into a media sideshow. If you're interested in the details about Jindal's spiritually experimental past, we have lots more for you after the jump. It's lively stuff. In the essay (purchase required), Jindal describes an emotional friendship with a classmate, "Susan," recently diagnosed with skin cancer and reeling after the suicide of a close friend. Susan's behavior becomes stranger, and she is surrounded by "sulfuric" smells. Finally, one night at a prayer meeting, she collapses in a seizure -- and the exorcism begins: The students, led by Susan's sister and Louise, a member of a charismatic church, engaged in loud and desperate prayers while holding Susan with one hand. Kneeling on the ground, my friends were chanting, "Satan, I command you to leave this woman." Others exhorted all "demons to leave in the name of Christ." It is no exaggeration to note the tears and sweat among those assembled. Susan lashed out at the assembled students with verbal assaults. Jindal then describes how the whole situation made him physically uncomfortable, and he wondered if the same demon afflicting Susan was responsible for his state of nervousness: Whenever I concentrated long enough to begin prayer, I felt some type of physical force distracting me. It was as if something was pushing down on my chest, making it very hard for me to breathe. . . Though I could find no cause for my chest pains, I was very scared of what was happening to me and Susan. I began to think that the demon would only attack me if I tried to pray or fight back; thus, I resigned myself to leaving it alone in an attempt to find peace for myself. After a lull in the event -- it in fact lasted "a few hours" by Jindal's reckoning -- Susan attempted to run away, but was dutifully pinned back on the floor by her friends: Maybe she sensed our weariness; whether by plan or coincidence, Susan chose the perfect opportunity to attempt an escape. She suddenly leapt up and ran for the door, despite the many hands holding her down. This burst of action served to revive the tired group of students and they soon had her restrained once again, this time half kneeling and half standing. After what sounds like a number of hours, and a failed attempt at getting help from a preacher (he refused to assist), the exorcism finally concludes in dramatic fashion: It appeared as if we were observing a tremendous battle between the Susan we knew and loved and some strange evil force. But the momentum had shifted and we now sensed that victory was at hand. While Alice and Louise held Susan, her sister continued holding the Bible to her face. Almost taunting the evil spirit that had almost beaten us minutes before, the students dared Susan to read biblical passages. She choked on certain passages and could not finish the sentence "Jesus is Lord." Over and over, she repeated "Jesus is L..L..LL," often ending in profanities. In between her futile attempts, Susan pleaded with us to continue trying and often smiled between the grimaces that accompanied her readings of Scripture. Just as suddenly as she went into the trance, Susan suddenly reappeared and claimed "Jesus is Lord." With an almost comical smile, Susan then looked up as if awakening from a deep sleep and asked, "Has something happened?" She did not remember any of the past few hours and was startled to find her friends breaking out in cheers and laughter, overwhelmed by sudden joy and relief. Jindal writes proudly about the experiment's conclusion: "When the operation occurred, the surgeons found no traces of cancerous cells. Susan claimed she had felt healed after the group prayer and can remember the sensation of being 'purified.'" Jindal's office has not yet responded to requests for comment. Late update: This post originally asserted that we "discovered" Jindal's essay, but several readers have brought to our attention that we are not the first to blog on this subject. Daily Kingfish and DailyKos discussed Jindal's exorcism experience during his gubernatorial campaigns in 2003 and 2007, and Jezebel parodied it as recently as last month. The topic has renewed relevance now that Jindal is being discussed as a possible vice presidential candidate. But credit where credit is due for these earlier reports.

[THX_1138]

I seriously hope he is not. It will in all likelihood be Michael Huckabee in order to appeal to the southern evangelists. Moreover, about Jindal, he is quite a Bushie... against abortion, promotes a flat tax, wants a repeal of the estate tax, will reduce funding to the department of education, EPA, is against mileage standards, opposes the Kyoto Protocol, actually he is nowhere on the page when it comes to environmental protection... in essence, this asswipe will be a rubber stamp republican from the school of Karl Rove and Dick Chenny.

[Brainfade]

... against abortion' date=' .[/quote'] Why would anyone be for abortion?

[THX_1138]

Why would anyone be for abortion?

most progressive candidates are pro choice... i.e. obeying roe vs. wade, a monumentary supreme court decision where it was deemed that the federal government's attempt to curb a woman's right over her body, i.e. the right to an abortion, right to contraceptives is unconstitutional.

[Brainfade]

most progressive candidates are pro choice... i.e. obeying roe vs. wade' date=' a monumentary supreme court decision where it was deemed that the federal government's attempt to curb a woman's right over her body, i.e. the right to an abortion, right to contraceptives is unconstitutional.[/quote'] First, we are bound to "obeying" every monumental supreme court decision for as long as it is the law. But the beauty of the nation lies in the fact that laws may be modified, amended and re-worked. In addition, constitutional amendments are allowed. So, Roe v. Wade may not be the law forever. Unalienable basic rights include "LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The question I ask is "Is the fetus LIFE?" First, if you ever happened to look at a real-time ultrasound of a 7-wk old fetus with a beating "heart," you may have a hard time arguing it is not "life." With improvements in biomedical technologies such as 3-D and 4-"D" ultrasonography, we now know more about what the fetus looks like in real time. When Roe v. Wade was passed, we did not know enough about the fetus' features, but now we do. Second, a genetic argument can be made for the fetus being an entirely different individual than "its" mother. Finally, the zygote (fertilized egg) represents the first cell of a new life, and is about the ONLY cell that can be nurtured into an adult human being (although that may change with new cloning techniques). FWIW, let me assert that I am no religious right-winger. I am an atheist with a biology background. As a scientist who interprets egg-sperm fusion as the sole event that immediately gives rise to an entirely new genetic individual, I cannot help but be "pro-life." While I may listen to arguments for a 1st-trimester abortion, when the fetus is not viable (even with today's incubation technology), I just cannot fathom how one can make an argument for partial-birth abortions (7+ months gestation). For instance, a friend of mine had premature twins - born over 2 months early. Legally, a fetus can be removed at that stage by inducing labor and terminated immediately. That, to me, is particularly abhorrent. What makes this issue really difficult is in the case of forced pregnancy (non-consensual sex) or if the pregnancy puts the mother's health in jeopardy. Finally, Roe v. Wade had nothing to do with contraceptives. It was only about abortion. BTW, I came across this article about Jindal, which reminded me that I needed to post on this thread. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTVjZTYxOWNhODZlOGVjMjdhNjk0MmJmNGQ1ZmU4MTE= The move put Jindal in an awkward position. He had promised the largely Democratic legislature that he would leave them alone — that he wouldn’t veto a pay raise. Slapping them down would promise to be a headache for Jindal, who has a long to-do list that has to get through the statehouse. Refusing to veto the pay raise, however, would contrast with the reform governor and conservative rising star’s image — and campaign platform. His profile as a refreshing, clean-living leader for Louisiana would be tarnished. On Monday Jindal did the right thing and said the words a politician rarely utters: He said he made a mistake. At a press conference, Jindal announced that he had “clearly made a mistake by telling the legislature that I would allow them to handle their own affairs,” Jindal said. “As with all mistakes, you can either correct them or compound them — I am choosing to correct my mistake now.” Jindal added: “I have opposed this pay raise at every turn and from the very beginning. A doubling of legislative pay is clearly excessive and it takes effect prior to the next election, which I believe is bad policy.” Governor Jindal said: “This bill would also have set up a system to give legislators automatic pay raises in the future without additional legislative votes — which is a lack of accountability that we cannot accept.” Jindal was considering letting the unpopular raise stand, in the hopes that the legislature would be more cooperative on the to-do list he and the state’s voters are counting on getting passed in the coming months. But having vetoed the pay raise — which would have made the Cajun legislature the best-paid legislature in the south — Jindal can hold legislators to a much higher standard than political compromise: their obligations to the voters of Louisiana, so in need of good representation, ethical politics, and responsible spending and governance.

[THX_1138]

First, we are bound to "obeying" every monumental supreme court decision for as long as it is the law. But the beauty of the nation lies in the fact that laws may be modified, amended and re-worked. In addition, constitutional amendments are allowed. So, Roe v. Wade may not be the law forever. Unalienable basic rights include "LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The question I ask is "Is the fetus LIFE?" First, if you ever happened to look at a real-time ultrasound of a 7-wk old fetus with a beating "heart," you may have a hard time arguing it is not "life." With improvements in biomedical technologies such as 3-D and 4-"D" ultrasonography, we now know more about what the fetus looks like in real time. When Roe v. Wade was passed, we did not know enough about the fetus' features, but now we do. Second, a genetic argument can be made for the fetus being an entirely different individual than "its" mother. Finally, the zygote (fertilized egg) represents the first cell of a new life, and is about the ONLY cell that can be nurtured into an adult human being (although that may change with new cloning techniques). FWIW, let me assert that I am no religious right-winger. I am an atheist with a biology background. As a scientist who interprets egg-sperm fusion as the sole event that immediately gives rise to an entirely new genetic individual, I cannot help but be "pro-life." While I may listen to arguments for a 1st-trimester abortion, when the fetus is not viable (even with today's incubation technology), I just cannot fathom how one can make an argument for partial-birth abortions (7+ months gestation). For instance, a friend of mine had premature twins - born over 2 months early. Legally, a fetus can be removed at that stage by inducing labor and terminated immediately. That, to me, is particularly abhorrent. What makes this issue really difficult is in the case of forced pregnancy (non-consensual sex) or if the pregnancy puts the mother's health in jeopardy. Finally, Roe v. Wade had nothing to do with contraceptives. It was only about abortion. BTW, I came across this article about Jindal, which reminded me that I needed to post on this thread. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTVjZTYxOWNhODZlOGVjMjdhNjk0MmJmNGQ1ZmU4MTE= The move put Jindal in an awkward position. He had promised the largely Democratic legislature that he would leave them alone — that he wouldn’t veto a pay raise. Slapping them down would promise to be a headache for Jindal, who has a long to-do list that has to get through the statehouse. Refusing to veto the pay raise, however, would contrast with the reform governor and conservative rising star’s image — and campaign platform. His profile as a refreshing, clean-living leader for Louisiana would be tarnished. On Monday Jindal did the right thing and said the words a politician rarely utters: He said he made a mistake. At a press conference, Jindal announced that he had “clearly made a mistake by telling the legislature that I would allow them to handle their own affairs,†Jindal said. “As with all mistakes, you can either correct them or compound them — I am choosing to correct my mistake now.†Jindal added: “I have opposed this pay raise at every turn and from the very beginning. A doubling of legislative pay is clearly excessive and it takes effect prior to the next election, which I believe is bad policy.†Governor Jindal said: “This bill would also have set up a system to give legislators automatic pay raises in the future without additional legislative votes — which is a lack of accountability that we cannot accept.†Jindal was considering letting the unpopular raise stand, in the hopes that the legislature would be more cooperative on the to-do list he and the state’s voters are counting on getting passed in the coming months. But having vetoed the pay raise — which would have made the Cajun legislature the best-paid legislature in the south — Jindal can hold legislators to a much higher standard than political compromise: their obligations to the voters of Louisiana, so in need of good representation, ethical politics, and responsible spending and governance.

son i am way too slick, and you neither have the talent or the ability to engage me successfully in arguing how an ultraconservative, randian politician such as bobby jindal is good for this country, or this world. if you must really debate this, let me know and we can email back and forth, rather than use this forum as a podium to persue personal vendetta.

[Brainfade]

son i am way too slick' date=' and you neither have the talent or the ability to engage me successfully in arguing how an ultraconservative, randian politician such as bobby jindal is good for this country, or this world. if you must really debate this, let me know and we can email back and forth, rather than use this forum as a podium to persue personal vendetta.[/quote'] There is no personal vendetta here. I am just using this thread to: (a) post articles that I find interesting about Bobby Jindal. After all, this thread started out as a Jindal-thread. (b) Expound on my science-based views on fetal development and the abortion issue, because it was brought up in one of the initial posts. OK, you win. I'm not interested in a vendetta-type debate. If you think you are too slick for me, I am all the happier to defer to your confidence and say "You win." I may or may not have the talent or the ability to debate you, but I certainly don't have the time or interest. I will continue to respond to random threads when I find the time, like I did last night when a crying baby woke me up at an unearthly hour and I couldn't go back to sleep, or now when I am at work eating "Tomato-bhaat" and "kozhakkattais." Yum.