Louis R. Avallone

Blog

  • Good Choices

    Making good choices is necessary for a good life, but it’s not always easy. For example, sometimes we’re caught between a “rock and hard place,” or we’re left to choose between “the devil and the deep blue sea.” But whatever your expression, sometimes it’s a situation with very few choices, if any at all, and with none of them seeming particularly good, either.

    This may very well describe the situation for nearly 75% of voters in Shreveport, who didn’t vote for either Adrian Perkins or Mayor Ollie Tyler, in the first place. Choosing one of them in the run-off election on December 8 may present a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation. Is your vote for Mayor Tyler a tacit “endorsement” of the direction our city is heading, or a merely a vote of “expectation” that she will build upon her experience in office and learn from her mistakes?

    Is your vote for Adrian Perkins to give Shreveport an experimental “shot in the arm” for new leadership, or is it a “Hail Mary” vote of desperation to elect anyone else but the incumbent?

    These are the questions that have been debated greatly, around dinner tables in Shreveport and on social media, for months. Of course, the candidates haven’t always made answering these questions easy for us, as voters. Both Mayor Tyler and Adrian Perkins have dodged questions, remained silent on others, and skipped debate forums throughout the campaign, including a mayoral forum on race relations in our city. But you see, this lack of transparency undermines our ability, as voters, to properly evaluate their candidacy – but maybe, in some instances, that’s the idea.

    For example, Adrian Perkins says he “believe(s) in Shreveport” and his intentions “have always been to return to Shreveport,” yet he purchased a home in Georgia and his vehicle is registered in Tennessee. He lists on his resume as having worked, in some capacity, for the State of Louisiana and the City of Shreveport, and yet both have no record of him working in any capacity. He admits he does not have a job, but says he won’t answer questions about his income, or how he supports himself, otherwise. He has never voted in an election (other than most recently for himself), and even missed the April 28 vote this year (held 2 days after he announced he was running for mayor), and yet remains silent on the reason(s) why.

    The fact these questions exist is not the issue – the fact they have not been fully addressed by the candidate is the trouble. Of course, some may say these questions are unimportant, or petty. They say we’re missing the forest for the trees, so to speak, by bringing them up, at all. Maybe they’re right.

    But the notion of a representative democracy derives its authority from the consent of the governed, and when political candidates won’t fully present themselves for substantive (and transparent) consideration, or otherwise aren’t forthright, our elections become more about protecting the personal interests of a few, than the best interests of the many.

    And since when did asking questions of political candidates become so disparaged and unthinkable? Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter.” Well, elections matter, a lot, so why should anyone remain silent? If voters are bullied enough to stop asking questions of candidates and elected officials, then won’t political double-talk, in well-scripted press releases, simply rule the day?

    Life is not a polished press release or staged photo opportunity – and neither is running a major city like Shreveport. Experience is important. There are questions that aren’t scripted, budgets to be balanced, and problems that won’t be solved with slogans. Just watch the most recent mayoral forum that was televised on KTAL (on November 29) to see what I mean. You’ll see the candidates, without the benefit of their prepared statements and you’ll get a better glimpse of the real person who is asking for your vote, and what they know about running anything, at all.

    Like many of you, I feel caught between a “rock and hard place” this mayoral election, but the last thing we should do is stop asking the questions that matter, or vote for a candidate who isn’t willing to answer them.

  • Trust

    Being a leader is more than just following the rules. Rules tell us merely what we are prohibited from doing, and only the minimum of what we are required to do, instead. Or put another way, just because we can do it, doesn’t mean we should.

    Just because you can afford it, doesn’t mean you should buy it. Just because you can eat whatever you want without gaining weight, doesn’t mean you should. Just because you can skip that workout, or have just one more drink, or bail out of a commitment, doesn’t mean that you should.

    Some say this is the difference between what you may have a right to do, and what is the right thing to do. Shreveport Police Chief Alan Crump, for example, had a right to take medical leave from his position, only days after the primary election on November 6, and mere weeks before a new mayor (or the newly re-elected mayor) most certainly would have replaced him. But, was it the right thing to do, considering how the timing of it all appeared to be politically motivated, and self-serving, all while raising doubts of any real transparency in city government?

    So, instead of resigning (as he originally told Mayor Tyler he would), the residents of Shreveport will now pay him to serve as our police chief – even though he won’t be (he’ll be on medical leave) – and we’ll be paying an extra police chief’s salary to someone else altogether (for at least one more year).

    This election season has been chock-full of similar situations where candidates, and city leaders alike, chose between what they had a right to do, and what was the right thing to do. Shreveport City Councilman Willie Bradford, for example, had a right to say at a political rally, “We cannot keep electing our housewives,” when referring to city council candidate (and housewife), Wendy Vance. But was that the right thing to do?

    Mayoral candidate Adrian Perkins has the right not to provide more of an explanation of why he had never voted in any election before November 6 (including the election that was held just 2 days after he announced he was running for mayor). He certainly has the right not to provide more details about his military service, or explain why he bought a home in Savannah, Georgia, when he said he always planned to come home to Shreveport. But is that the right thing to do, when Shreveport voters are already so jaded, and distrustful of government, in the first place?

    You see, whether it’s the police chief, an elected official, or a candidate for public office, leaders should do more than just what they have a “right” to do. Within reason, and when questioned, our leaders can’t just say, “I have a right to do X, Y, or Z and don’t have to answer that question” or to otherwise parse their response with what seems like only half the story. Why not just answer the real question, “Is what you’re doing the right thing?”

    Is what you’re doing restoring trust in city government, and in you? Or is it fueling more suspicion of both? Is this more about you, than us?

    This is important because no one – from the mayor to city council to school board – can effectively lead a team that doesn’t trust them, whether because of outright deceit, or half-baked lies of omission. After all, as Benjamin Franklin once wrote, “Half the truth is often a great lie.”

    And when we hear supporters of candidates talk about “integrity,” or write “Letters to the Editor” about their candidate’s transparency and forthrightness, it must be more than just rhetoric because they know that’s what the voters want to hear – it ought to be because they understand “why” those values are important, in the first place.

    Maybe it’s like our Governor Earl Long once prophesied: “Someday, Louisiana is gonna get good government, and they ain’t gonna like it.” At this point, I’d settle for just trusting it.

  • Thank You, Candidates

    By the time you are reading this, the results from the November 6 election will be known, and those campaigns, whose candidates who are now in the run-off election on December 8, will have re-doubled their efforts and are back at work to earn your vote.

    So, for just a moment, let’s take this opportunity to thank all of the candidates – from all the political parties (including those who are “no party,” as well). They all deserve our respect, not necessarily because we all agree, politically, but because they understand the principle, as many of us do, that life is a fight for territory, and that once we stop fighting for what we want, what we don’t want will automatically take over. And that’s what these candidates did for months on end, leading up to election day — and they fought for what they wanted, instead of just wringing their hands; they sought to be the change they so very much wanted to see.

    Of course, the Book of James tells us that “a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”. And while many worry about the erosion of our religious liberty, the decline of our education system, the deterioration of the family, and the fiscal irresponsibility of our elected officials, they often don’t go any further than worrying. Candidates go further — much further, and this is why I believe candidates deserve our respect, even when we greatly disagree.

    From neighborhood association meetings to church groups, from walking miles upon miles down city streets and country roads, knocking on doors and putting up signs – the candidates themselves do embody the old-fashioned, pioneer-like grit and determination that is the American way. The candidates are the “man in the arena,” as Theodore Roosevelt put it, and the credit belongs to him or her:

    “The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena…who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

    Furthermore, remember, as Thomas Jefferson’s said, “We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” While Jefferson was referring to the electorate, I believe it applies equally to candidates, as well. And every candidate has certainly done their part to “participate,” and sacrificed much to do so.

    No, losing is no fun, of course, and being criticized for losing, or ridiculed for one’s opinions, isn’t either. But there is no shame or dishonor in losing an election – so long as the campaign was run with honor and integrity.

    There have been – and will be – lots of “I told you so” opinions, which will point out this reason or that reason; this issue or that issue, that made all the difference in one race or another, this election cycle. And there will be plenty of time for looking in the rear-view mirror.

    But for now, whatever our politics, and however elated or disappointed we may feel about the election results from Tuesday, we remain grateful to those candidates who, at least, gave us a choice, and those thousands souls who paid the ultimate sacrifice for there to be one, in the first place.

  • Bright Shiny Objects

    There’s an assumption here, among many mayoral candidates, that the problems Shreveport is dealing with is a lack of new ideas. For example, Adrian Perkins says it’s time for Shreveport to become a “smart city” and set-aside around $400 million to construct a city-owned broadband network.

    Then, Steven Jackson wants to establish a “universal Pre-K” program for kids, at an estimated cost of $30 million per year, plus gunshot-detection technology that costs nearly $500,000. Mayor Tyler is already forking out $3 million for a new 2.4-acre park between Texas Avenue, Crockett Street and Cotton Street, and she wanted the city council last year to spend $30 million for a new sports arena complex on Cross Bayou.

    The “pie-in-sky” political promises aren’t new, of course. Former mayor Cedric Glover spent nearly $10 million on slick “high-tech” water meters, and yet many are not even in operation today. Former mayor Keith Hightower borrowed $110 million for a new convention center and hotel 15 years ago, and the city still subsidizes its operations – to the tune of almost $2 million this year alone.

    You see, as experience shows, Shreveport does not need more bright, shiny objects, like the examples above. That’s not innovation. It’s the pursuit of the make-believe. It wastes time and energy, and produces little in return

    Sure, I understand the appeal of it, though. It’s like seeing the sheer happiness on a child’s face after handing him a brand new, shiny wrapped toy at Christmas. And indeed, to hear many of the mayoral candidates, it must be Christmas morning around here – everyday.

    But even Christmas morning is more than just about getting stuff. It’s about focusing on what matters most, and what lasts; not so much about what we want, but about what others need most. And the next mayor of Shreveport must be mature enough, and lived here enough years, to know the difference between what we need in Shreveport for everyone’s sake, and some cockamamie idea or scheme that “sounds” good, but only a select few

    This is important because we’re facing rising violent crime, a diminished tax base, plus over $200 million in underfunded pension plans, nearly $500 million in water, streets, and sewer improvement projects (in part to satisfy a consent decree with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Justice), and a convention center that is generating zero net revenue for the city, while costing taxpayers about $5,000 per day to keep the doors open.

    No, no, no, there’s no single, bright, shiny object to fix it all, and frankly, we don’t have time for all of that childishness.

    And while there’s no panacea, we can start by electing a new mayor that has more gray hairs than wild ones; who realizes the most successful, thriving cities are those that are really efficient at doing just the basics, like sewer, water, trash pick-up, issuing building permits, repairing roads, fire, police, etc.

    And someone who knows that when we get good at doing just the basics, we’ll also get good at being fiscally responsible (unlike Detroit where they can’t pay their bills, or Chicago, where 60% of their tax dollars go to fund just their debt and pension payments alone),

    It doesn’t sound particularly dazzling or sexy, and it may not catapult you into some higher office in the future, or get you on the cover of any magazine, but mastering the basics – the fundamentals – still remains a hallmark of responsible government.

    Now, I’ve heard some candidates say, “Look at what they have done in Chattanooga,” or “see what Plano is doing” for economic development, or “how it’s done in Los Angeles” or in Atlanta, or “we’ll try what they’ve done in Baton Rouge.”

    Yes, it’s important to look at best practices, wherever they may be, but with so many Shreveporters living below the poverty line, the lack of affordable housing, the lack of feeling safe in your own home, and more and more Shreveporters choosing to leave, we need a mayor who has great regard for the long-term maintenance of what we ALREADY have, and commitments ALREADY made – before we start chasing new ones.

    As it is often said, the devil is always in the details – and it is in this mayor’s race. But the devil doesn’t necessarily come dressed in a red cape and pointy horns, either. He comes as everything you’ve ever wished for, if you’ll only give him your vote, or yet another tax, to pay for yet another bright, shiny object.

    But we’ve collected a closet full of those now, over the past 20 years, and now is the time to elect a mayor who will get city government back to the basics first – because they’ve lived here long enough to know that all that glitters isn’t gold.

  • Perkins First Vote Will Be for Himself

    Maybe they don’t believe in the system. Or don’t think their vote will matter. Perhaps they don’t have the time, or don’t like the long lines (although it takes less than 14 minutes to vote).

    Or maybe they don’t know if they are registered to vote, or where to register (even though most anyone from most anywhere with access to a smart phone could remedy that in just moments). Or maybe they don’t like the candidates or the campaign issues (because 25% of the millions who didn’t vote in 2016 felt that way).

    Perhaps they were just out of town, or it was too rainy/snowy/hot/cold outside to go vote (even though you can always just vote early, or if you qualify, request an absentee ballot and mail it in, just like the 23 million other Americans, civilian or military alike, that did that in 2016).

    Whatever the reason for anyone not voting, it’s morally significant because the way we vote can help – or harm – people. We either encourage businesses to relocate to our community, or cause them to leave. We can vote to improve the education of our children, increase their job opportunities, and thereby reduce the number of those living in poverty, or we can spend millions of taxpayer dollars on waste, fraud, and abuse – from a poorly managed police department and rising crime, to a water billing fiasco that reveals an administration nearly blind to the interests of its citizens, or so arrogant to think you won’t know the difference.

    But not voting, at all, just contributes to the problems.

    And yet, some of the most obsessive complainers and activists, who act like they know so much more than us, don’t even bother to vote themselves. Take Bernie Sanders, for example, the so-called “champion for the middle class.” He never voted in an election until he was 30 years old – and he says that was just so he could vote for himself!

    Closer to home, there’s a candidate for Shreveport mayor, Adrian Perkins, who has not voted once in Shreveport, or Caddo Parish. His first vote ever will be in next month’s election – when he, also, will vote for himself.

    It begs the question of how any of us can be so vocal, and claim to be worried about the future of our city, if we never vote, or participate in the electoral process, in the first place. For some reason, I’m reminded of the saying, “If you don’t vote, don’t complain.”

    And not voting smacks of elitism: You mean the issues facing our community haven’t been important enough for you to get out and vote, or even request an absentee ballot, but now you want people to get out and vote for you, or your candidate, your tax renewal, or your “fill in the blank” ballot initiative of the day?

    I don’t think so. That’s not fair.

    Many men and women worked hard – many gave their lives in combat – to give us our right to vote at 18 years of age, and for anyone to purposely forfeit their input on tax rates, education, jobs, water and sewer services, economic development, public safety, government transparency, wage laws, pothole repairs, libraries, parks, bike paths, and so much more, is disappointing, to say the very least.

    Yes, of course, people may participate in politics in many other ways, besides voting. They can write their Representative or Senator, or work for a candidate or political party. They can make presentations to their local school board or city council, or write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper.

    However, because we have a “government by the majority who participate,” as Thomas Jefferson so famously said, then we have a duty to do just that – participate. And that means voting.

    The Bible teaches us that the failure to do something that one can, and ought to do, is sinful. James 4:17 reads, “So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.”

    So whatever the weather, whomever are the candidates, whichever the issues – we have a duty to vote (and not just for ourselves).

  • How the Letter “D” Changed Our Cities and Towns

    While correlation does not always imply causation, it begs the question, nevertheless: Why are the vast majority of the most powerless and impoverished citizens concentrated in cities run almost exclusively by Democrats? I mean, why is it that 80% of the FBI’s “Top 10” most violent cities are those run by Democrat mayors and city councils?

    Or that 90 percent of the poorest cities are run by Democrats? Or that 90 percent of the cities in the U.S. with the highest unemployment are run by Democrats? Or that Democrats are more likely to be involved in scandals regarding extramarital affairs, or scandalous affairs, otherwise? Whether all this is a result of ineffective policies, bad luck, or a genuine disinterest in the welfare of anyone else (other than themselves and their cronies), it still remains unclear.

    Statistically, Democrat-led cities outnumber those Republican-led ones by a ratio of 3 to 1, when looking at the 100 largest cities in our nation. And in all fairness, any Democrat missteps or misdeeds in office would obviously make headlines 3 times as much as it would for Republicans (just based on the numbers).

    But why are there so many Democrat-led cities, especially when there is generally more parity in the number of Democrats and Republicans serving in Congress? And again, why the high correlation between Democrat-led cities with the highest rates of poverty, violence, and scandal? 

    It could be just the number of registered Democrat voters outnumber Republican voters by 40% nationally, and with local turnout generally so low, a Republican (or “No Party”) candidate just has the odds of stacked against them, from the beginning. This is magnified here at home.

    In Shreveport, for example, the number of registered Democrat voters is more than double the number of registered Republicans voters. With those numbers, many would say a Republican candidate (city-wide) doesn’t even have a chance at winning. And therein may lie the answer to our question of why there’s so many Democrat mayors and city councils across the country that have presided over the economic and social decline of so many, once-thriving, American cities (like Shreveport).

    You see, there are many voters who may simply be reluctant to “throw their vote away” on a “longshot” Republican or No Party candidate, and instead look only for the “D” behind someone’s name, instead of their qualifications, and then pull the lever.

    Whether that is the answer or not, what you end up with is single-party politics at City Hall, and that is not so good for representing so many competing interests in our city. The checks and balances we have, as part of the elections process, only work when there are competing political parties, and with twice as many of us registering as “no party” voters in Louisiana, than Democrat or Republican combined, the checks and balances system has, in fact, become “un-checked and un-balanced.”

    The result is higher and higher Democrat-led cities, and the numbers on poverty, crime, and corruption, across the country, tell the tale.

    And unless voters hold elected officials accountable on election day (by actually showing up to the polls), the incumbents become less and less responsive to the voters, and as time marches on, they are more likely to be re-elected, and less likely to be removed, whether by the voters or prosecutors, or their own resignation.

    By the time they do get removed, though, or even investigated, it’s almost always too late. Remember New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin who was convicted on corruption charges for accepting bribes, free trips and other gratuities from contractors right after Hurricane Katrina? Or the mayor of Birmingham, Alabama who was convicted of accepting bribes in exchange for giving millions in sewer-bond business to a friend. Then there’s Nashville’s mayor who recently resigned amid a sex scandal involving her former head of security.

    Here at home, in New Roads, their mayor was indicted on ten felonies by a grand jury for putting thousands of dollars on a city issued credit card for personal use and then trading sexual favors from the city’s financial director in exchange her use of a city issued credit card, as well.

    Up in Allentown, Pennsylvania, the entrenched one-party politics was so bad that the mayor was re-elected to a fourth term, even after being indicted on 47 charges of trading contributions to his campaigns for favorable treatment to donors getting work from the city.

    Besides malfeasance in office, and dishonesty, what these mayors all have in common is that they have a “D” behind their name, and from the conviction rate and the indictments, there’s not much else worth noting. Of course, voters in those cities above probably didn’t think, at the time, they were “throwing their vote away” on those (soon to be) corrupted officials. They thought they were making it count by voting for who they thought would win (but that’s not the same as the best candidate for the job). In reality, they were throwing away more than a vote – it’s the future of their community.

    And no, this isn’t about tearing down one political party, or uplifting another (although it sure sounds like it). It’s just worth noting the remarkable correlation of Democrat-led cities with increased poverty, violent crime, and unmitigated corruption – and understanding the psychology of why voters keep voting for the same “brand” of candidate – because they didn’t want to “throw away” their vote – even after years and years of having nothing to show for it.

    Either voters a) don’t realize the consequences, b) their “give-a-damn” is broken, or c) it’s both. While this may mean we’re getting the government we deserve, it’s definitely not the government any of us need – no matter what letter you put behind your name.

  • Sit and Think

    Sit and Think

    Would you rather sit and think, or give yourself a mild electric shock? As ridiculous of a question as that may seem, research from the University of Virginia suggests some people are so uncomfortable being alone with their thoughts that they would choose to give themselves mild electric shocks, rather than just sit and think. In fact, the complete study confirmed most people would rather do almost anything else than think alone and quietly.

    This aversion to just “sitting and thinking” through solutions to life’s daily challenges may explain a lot of life’s regrets: The one who got away, the job you didn’t take, the money you didn’t save, the fight you wish you hadn’t had, ordering just one more drink etc. – but there’s always going to be something that you’d wish you’d done differently, right?

    But when we are in that moment of making a decision, however, we all tend to believe we know what we’re doing. I mean, most people believe they are above average drivers, or possess above average intelligence or humor – but obviously not everyone can be above average (even though we can all have the illusion that we are).

    So when Shreveport City Council voted this month to give 10,000 taxpayer dollars to an individual who was organizing a film festival, I suppose these elected council officials thought they knew what they were doing, but had they sat and thought about it? The resolution before the City Council, authored by Councilwoman Stephanie Lynch, suggested that directing $10,000 from the City’s checking account to the Shreveport Urban Film Festival (“SUFF”) served an “overriding public purpose.”

    SUFF’s stated purpose is to “showcase the developing talent of the next generation of African-American filmmakers,” and it’s a worthy ambition, just as the Louisiana Film Prize has done an admirable job of attracting diverse filmmakers to our community. But that’s not the point here.

    It’s not that the organizer of SUFF should allow all filmmakers to enter this competition for the prize money – after all, there are film festivals, and other community events, that cater to this group or that group, which are held throughout the year, with great fanfare. No big deal.

    After all, any of us has the right to associate with anyone else – or not to. This is an inseparable aspect of liberty that is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    But the reason that this $10,000 gift from the taxpayers to an unnamed person, belongs in the “what were they thinking” category is because the City Charter seemingly doesn’t allow it. In fact, Sec. 26-53(a) of the City Charter prohibits public funds to be donated to any “for-profit” organization, but this film festival is not organized as such, nor is it authorized to receive tax deductible contributions, which the City Charter also requires, per Sec. 26-53(c). Nor does the City have a contract with the recipient of the $10,000, which the City Charter likewise mandates. And finally, the City Charter doesn’t permit use of City funds, whatever the source, to support any activity that discriminates by reason of race, color, etc. and yet the City Council has.

    $10,000 is a lot of money. Consider how many potholes could be filled, or tall grass that could be cut, and trash collected off the streets with $10,000, or overtime for police officers to patrol our streets at night, compared to the allegedly “overriding public purpose” of publicly funding a one-day film festival where only 2 of the 17 films being featured were even produced in our community.

    Some say this is an example of “take care of those who take care of you,” pork-barrel type politics, where the rules don’t apply equally to everyone. Some say this practice has single-handedly eroded the prosperity out of this community, and hallowed out any trust in local government for far too many years. And yet we continue electing these politicians into positions where it’s far easier for them to simply keep doing what we’ve been doing.

    Even though some City Council members may not have wanted to “sit and think” about this last-minute request for cash, Mayor Tyler certainly should have vetoed this resolution, and return it to the City Council clerk, with a statement of her disapproval, all per Sec. 4.21 of the City Charter.

    It would have been the right thing to do – if you just sit and think about it.

  • Housewives Need Not Apply

    Housewives Need Not Apply

    Women have been running for office in this country before they were allowed to vote. In fact, over 3,500 women campaigned for elected office before the 19th Amendment was even passed in 1920.

    And while the most likely path for these women to political office was through widowhood (at one point, 80 percent of women in office filled their husband’s seats), it’s not 1920, anymore, and someone should remind Shreveport City Councilman Willie Bradford of the same – and that it’s never too late to give up your prejudices.

    You see, at a recent political gathering, Councilman Bradford was introducing a candidate he was supporting for City Council, in District B. And while Councilman Bradford spoke for nearly 20 minutes, he spoke less of the virtues of the candidate he was there to support, and more about the unfairness and prejudice of Shreveport. To make his point, he singled out another candidate for City Council in District B, who is a stay-at-home mom, raising 2 children that she and her husband adopted. Councilman Bradford said, “Therein lies the problem with Shreveport, y’all,” as he explained, “We cannot keep electing our housewives.”

    Of course not, Mr. Bradford, so let’s just keep electing candidates who don’t know what daily life is all about for the average Shreveporter. Let’s keep electing those who are selected by the “ruling class,” in some cigar-chewing, smoke-filled backroom, where everyone present is promised a piece of “pie” while the rest of us pick-up the check (including the gratuity).

    According to Mr. Bradford’s remarks, stay-at-home moms are not “qualified” to serve in elected office because they are not “fighters” and haven’t “paid their dues.” Really? What mom do you know that isn’t a “fighter” for her family? Moms “fight” everyday – often clocking a 94-hour work week as the money manager, the cook, the psychologist, housekeeper, event planner, etc. of their household. In fact, Salary.com estimates that it would cost almost $150,000 a year to replace them.

    And when Mr. Bradford says that we says we need to elect someone who has “paid their dues,” what does that mean? To whom are the dues owed? Maybe that’s been the path to elected office here, in the past, but how well has that worked out so far, for the 47% of Shreveporters that Mr. Bradford says live in poverty now? Not very well.

    And while Mr. Bradford believes that a stay-at-home mom isn’t qualified to run for elected office because she knows “nothing” about politics, there are lots of successful people who knew “nothing” before they learned exactly what it took to get the job done.

    For example, Mary Kay Ash, the founder of Mary Kay Cosmetics had no formal education or entrepreneurial training, before starting her company in 1963. Billionaire Richard Branson had no formal higher education, or business training, before he started Virgin Records. Andrew Carnegie dropped out of school at an early age to work and taught himself by reading as much as he could, before becoming the richest American of all-time. Thomas Edison didn’t have any sort of formal training or professional experience. Nor did Walt Disney, or even Colonel Sanders, who learned to cook while caring for his siblings growing up, long before opening his first Kentucky Fried Chicken.

    It’s different today, though. Women represent approximately 20 percent of Congress, about 25 percent of state legislature seats, and nearly 12 percent of governorships. They hold about one-quarter percent of statewide elected offices, such as attorney general and lieutenant governor. And even though women have shown they can win elections, often at comparable (if not higher) rates than men, too few women run for office at all, especially after folks like Mr. Bradford take the podium.

    So it’s not hard to understand why women think they are less “qualified” to run for office than men, and why they are less likely to be recruited for office (since they haven’t “paid their dues”).

    But despite Mr. Bradford’s public comments about Wendy Vance having been viewed on social media, hundreds and hundreds of times, the silence of so many elected officials (many of whom want to be your next Mayor or City Councilman), and who should be pushing back on such comments – and encouraging women, instead – is deafening.

    Abraham Lincoln was right when he said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” and the same can be said for Shreveport, especially this election year. Yes, inclusion takes time…it takes effort…and it takes a willingness to listen.

    Even to housewives.

  • Silencing the Inner Critic

    Silencing the Inner Critic

    Earlier this month, a website (that most folks have not heard of, 24/7 Wall Street) ranked Shreveport as the 21st worst city in the U.S. to live in, just behind Compton, California and Little Rock, Arkansas. For too many Shreveporters, this seemed plausible, or at least it “sounded about right,” for a city with rampant crime, anemic economic development, and a shrinking population.

    Nevermind that 24/7 Wall Street earns its income from publishing “click-bait” stories that generate massive amounts of income per day by posting low-effort content and that their arbitrary methodologies serve that singular purpose.

    Pay no attention, apparently, that these methodologies are contradictory, and inconsistent, since “click-bait” sites (that publish ranking lists like this one) typically don’t take the time to explain why they weighted some factors less, such crime or education, over the economy or leisure, just as an example.

    Or why they factor our average monthly rainfall into where Shreveport will rank on their “worst” list. Or how high school standardized test scores, or the “rate at which individuals were readmitted to a hospital within 30 days of being discharged,” influence the rating of how undesirable living in Shreveport must be.

    Whether it makes sense or not, all that gets factored into our “worst” ranking.

    They have factor in the “30-day, risk-adjusted mortality rates of heart attacks, COPD, heart failure, pneumonia, and stroke.” Oh, and the number of ski resorts in the area surrounding the city. That factors in, as well.

    You know, these “ranking” or “best of” posts online are largely a work of fiction, aimed to get you to “clicking” and to get them paid by advertisers who really don’t care whether what you’re reading is fact, or fiction.

    Yes, of course, Shreveport has its issues, but to create a listing of “worst” cities to live in, based only on U.S. Census data from 2016 – when you have not even visited a majority of those cities on your “list” – is ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is that so many of us, across the country, even bother to pay attention.

    What’s most concerning of all, however, is how readily so many Shreveporters are willing to accept the idea that their city is one of the worst cities to live. Where’s the push back? Or the “Aw, hell no?”

    Maybe too many Shreveporters believe they belong on such a “worst of” list, and don’t deserve (or shouldn’t expect) anything better?

    But that’s not good because how we speak to ourselves – how we think of one another – is important. The Bible tells us this also, “For as he thinks in his heart, so is he.” (Proverbs 23:7).

    So, why would so many think we’re not deserving of something better than to be on a “worst of” list? Maybe it is a product of our past. The drop in oil prices in the 1980s – and the bankruptcies and foreclosures that followed – didn’t help, of course. Fast forward to the GM Plant closing in 2012 and countless manufacturing jobs that have left town. Then there’s the dilapidated streets, higher and higher property taxes, failing schools, rising city debt (even amidst a declining population), plus rising crime and anemic economic development.

    So, I get it. Maybe there’s good reason for why so many feel undeserving of something better.

    And this may also explain why so many tend to be jaded about whether or not Shreveporters will support a venture, like the NBA “G-league,” or why we may wonder aloud, “Why in the world the Miss USA competition would choose Shreveport? Or why we ask people who have moved here, “How did you end up in Shreveport?”

    This sense of “not deserving better” may be exactly why we keep electing the same character of leaders who got us into this mess, in the first place.

    And when we don’t feel we deserve better, guess what happens? We elect leaders who treat us as if we don’t deserve better, and who are more interested in “serving” themselves, than our community.

    It’s often said that people will treat you the way you let them, so appearing on a “worst place to live” list should have set off a firestorm of criticism from Shreveporters – but too many simply read the headline and said, “that sounds about right.”

    But it isn’t, and if we’re okay ranking ourselves at the bottom, why in the world would anyone rank us at the top?

  • Party of Failure

    Party of Failure

    Common sense is not partisan, nor political. It’s not racial. It matters not to common sense how much money you have, nor your gender, creed, or family name. It pays no attention to how many diplomas are framed up on your wall, nor which side of the tracks you grew up on. Common sense knows better because it’s been there, and done that.

    So when State Representative (and former Shreveport Mayor) Cedric Glover recently wrote that Shreveport has no crime fighting vision or strategy, but that violent crime today isn’t nearly as bad when Shreveport had Republican mayors in the 1990s, he missed an opportunity to bring attention to those common sense solutions that have worked in the past, and that might work today, rather than take a political jab, as he did, and continue dividing our city along the partisan lines that he says he also laments.

    But the truth about the 1990s, according to the FBI, is that there were more crimes registered during this time, across our country, than in any other time in our country’s history; any crime wave in Shreveport, then, was simply a reflection of what the rest of the country was experiencing at that time, and not exclusive to Shreveport, by any means. And to blame Republican mayors in Shreveport, during this time of historic crime rates, is simply disingenuous and misleading.

    Yes, it is true that most of our country’s most troubled, dysfunctional cities have been electing Democrat mayors for decades. But does any of that really matter to the victims? I mean, when you don’t feel safe in your neighborhood, no one gives two-whits about the political party of the mayor, or the police chief, just like you don’t care much if the doctor in the O.R. is conservative or liberal, while you are being wheeled into surgery.

    What you really care about, in that situation, is whether the doctor is competent, or not. Is he or she qualified? Have they done this before, and if so, how many times? And, most importantly, what were their results? These are the same questions we should be asking of our elected officials.

    Is it coincidental that Detroit has not elected a Republican mayor since 1957, and today 40% of its population lives below the poverty line, or that it’s considered by most to be the most dangerous city in America?

    Is it worth discussing that, since 1927, Chicago has elected only Democrat mayors, and that today the violence in the inner-city today is unimaginable and the city is insolvent? Or that New Orleans has elected Democrat mayors since 1868 and is annually considered one of the most dangerous and corrupt cities in the country?

    Or that New Orleans has a higher murder rate than Chicago, Orlando and Cleveland, and has the highest homicide rate in the South?

    But since Representative Glover brought it up, are we supposed to ignore the pattern that has emerged of cities with Democrat leadership? Like in St. Louis (which has been electing Democrat mayors since 1949) or Philadelphia (which hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1952) or Baltimore and Oakland (whose mayors have been Democrat since the 1960s)? These cities all share common qualities: They are beaten down, broke, and rife with crime.

    Even uber-liberal filmmaker and Michigan-native Michael Moore can’t ignore the destructive cycle of it all, tweeting that “Flint has voted for Dems for 84 straight yrs” and then asked, “What did it get us?”

    Regardless of what side of the “aisle” you are on, we should all agree that government ought to be making more common sense choices than partisan ones, and less politicking for personal gain. As Thomas Jefferson said, “I can never fear that things will go far wrong where common sense has fair play.” In fact, “Nothing astonishes people so much as common sense and plain dealing,” as Ralph Waldo Emerson once said.

    So, Representative Glover, maybe partisanship hasn’t failed Shreveport as much as our elected officials have. And that seems like common sense to me.