Louis R. Avallone

Category: American Values

  • 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).

  • 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.

  • Get Back to Basics

    A 4-year-old is killed in a late night Shreveport shooting. A 15-year old is found murdered next to a bullet riddled SUV. Deadly shootings continue night after night at nondescript apartment complexes and along streets with names that most in Shreveport couldn’t locate on a map if their lives depended on it, and in neighborhoods some wouldn’t consider visiting even with a police escort.

    All the while, these members of our community continue to be pronounced dead at the scene, or at the hospital, night after night. Shell casings are collected, the crimes are investigated, and city leaders wring their hands helplessly into the night – until the next morning – when the headlines remind us that it’s happened all over again.

    They are found dead in parking lots, or on the stoops of their front doors; perhaps an argument over money, or a lover, or no good reason at all. They are the youngest among us, as well as those who age would suggest they should have known better, and others who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. The details of who or why are usually then reduced to a 10-word or less blurb on the morning news, as the rest of the city pours their first cup of coffee, and the lives of those lost become largely forgotten.

    As one Shreveport resident said, “It’s sad, but as long as it’s in our community and it’s not down on Youree drive, no one will be concerned about it.” That may or may not be true, but the irony is those most affected by violent crimes in their neighborhoods keep electing politicians who don’t effectively represent the immediate needs of their constituents.

    Instead of spending their time on reducing violent crime, many elected officials are spending their time proposing multi-million dollar land deals at Cross Bayou, instead. Or talking about how to provide high speed Internet to everyone. Does anyone really care how quickly a web page loads when you’re worried about whether the police can get to you in time?

    Unchecked rampant violent crime results in an outmigration of families, declining property values, and erodes our tax base, making it ever more difficult for us to maintain the law enforcement presence needed to address the violent crime, in the first place.

    Yes, we need more police officers, and we need better leadership for them.

    But as important as that is to reducing crime, we also have to focus on the basics. We need City Hall to deliver basic services efficiently and effectively, such as police, waste management, water, issuing building permits, repairing roads, etc. so that businesses want to locate here, and families feel secure here, and so wages can grow here. We need City Hall to be free from corruption and are 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). 

    We need City Hall to realize more beautification projects or economic “revitalization” won’t save Shreveport, whether it’s a dog park, or a money-pit Shreveport Convention Center, or a poorly performing Red River District. Turns out, we have to focus on the basics, first, not the shiny objects.

    It all goes back to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: Once our most basic needs are met, like feelings of security (and protection from crime), we are freed up to seek higher needs like belonging (to a community), and we’re willing to work at a job, or start a business, or move across state or across the country, to wherever meeting these basic needs is easiest for us to do.

    But it’s not Shreveport that’s distressed; its people are, because they don’t feel safe. And investing city resources into anything other than delivering the best city services is akin to putting a fresh coat of paint on a house while it’s on fire.

    We need a City Hall to get back to basics, before we get down to virtually nothing.

  • 15 Minutes of Fame

    We’ve all heard the phrase, “In the future, everybody will be famous for fifteen minutes.” Along with radio, television, and the growing affordability (and accessibility) to Internet technology, combined with our instinctive appetite for the urgent and dramatic, there are now billions who have the opportunity to seek the attention of billions of others. But for most of us, it’s more about the attention we’re giving others (e.g. what they said, what they did, etc.), rather than seeking from others.

    Unfortunately, many times it’s the whiny, rude, selfish, defiant, and violent to whom we give our most attention to. Does any one really care, for example, about what a Fresno State English professor said recently, following Barbara Bush’s passing, when she called Mrs. Bush an “amazing racist” who “raised a war criminal” and that she was “happy the witch is dead?”

    Does it really matter that millions pay attention when Jim Carrey tweets about White House Press Secretary Sara Sanders that her “only purpose in life is to lie for the wicked?” Or when Rosie O’Donnell says that Speaker of the House Paul Ryan is going “straight to hell?”

    Or how about when Jimmy Kimmel makes fun of Melania Trump’s accent when she speaks? Or when Joe Biden says “Republicans don’t want black folks voting?” Or when Joy Behar says on national television that hearing from Jesus is actually called “mental illness?”

    Yes, in fact, this does matter. A lot. And it’s because freedom of speech, or free speech, is the single biggest influence on our society, and it is guaranteed to each one of us, regardless of our gender, sex, religion, race, nationality, or any other identifying factor – regardless of how ridiculous, illogical, hypocritical, vile, or plain-stupid sounding your speech may be (there are exceptions, of course, present company excepted).

    Well, at least that’s the current popular opinion in our society. That may be changing, though. A study just last year says only 59% of Americans believe that you, or me, should be allowed to express unpopular opinions in public, even those that are deeply offensive to other people.”

    But for anyone wondering why so-called offensive speech should be free, the first question you should ask yourself is who gets to decide what’s offensive? You see, free speech enables the truth to emerge from diverse opinions, even if those offering those opinions are insatiably seeking their own “15 minutes” of fame, whether on social media or on national television. And having the government decide the “truth” of any matter is censorship, plain and simple. And as George Washington once said, “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” Who’s got time for that?

    The real issue isn’t as much what others say, but what we’re paying attention to, instead.

    Consider the disruptive behavior of school children who repeatedly leave their seats without good reason. Typically, the teacher interrupts the lesson to reprimand them. But researchers found reprimanding often increases the frequency of wandering, and that when the teacher ignored children who wandered, and “paid attention to those who worked hard, the frequency of the problem behavior usually fell sharply.”

    In other words, threats and criticism seemingly reward bad behavior, but when children got attention by behaving well, they did.

    But as adults, we can’t help ourselves. We are far more likely be attracted to annoying behaviors, than the desirable ones, especially if you’re a “problem solver-type” In fact, adults typically ignore 90 percent or more of the good things children do, but then pay lots of attention when children are behaving badly.

    Perhaps the most recent generation of parents can’t help it, though, because they have been raised in a culture that only paid attention to them as young children when they were complaining, and then were made to feel better by blaming someone else, becoming a victim, and giving them a trophy for just participating.

    This is more than just anecdotal evidence to make a point. You see, our misplaced adult attention may be creating the next generation of whiny, rude, selfish, defiant, and violent personalities because this is what we have taught them we pay attention to. It’s like the old saying, “Tell me to what you pay attention and I will tell you who you are.”

    The bigger question going forward is this: “Is what you pay attention to consistent with who you want to be?”

  • Polarization of America

    Nearly halfway into President Trump’s first term, there are some who might say that America today is more polarized than at any time in its history. And this goes behind mere partisan disagreements, or bickering, regarding any number of subjects – taxes, healthcare, immigration, education – or even more fundamentally, the role of government itself.

    Although many Americans are divided on the issues today, the fact is we have always been. Going back to the election of 1824, no President has ever been elected with more than about 60 percent of the American people’s support. It is expected (and encouraged) that Americans will disagree on what candidate should occupy the highest office in the land, but that alone doesn’t necessarily mean that America is polarized, which is altogether more sinister to our union. Here’s what I mean:

    You see, the polarization of America is defined by the extent to which public opinion is divided into the extremes, often encouraged by factions, within a political party, or by special interest. The casualties of a polarized nation are those moderate voices, in the middle, which often lose much of their power and influence within the political process.

    But in 2016, these moderate voices (sometimes referred to as the “silent majority”) reclaimed their power and influence, just long enough to elect Donald Trump as President, defying the conventional wisdom of those “who knew better.”

    And ever since, “those who knew better” have strained their minds, wrung their hands, pulled out their hair, and lost countless nights of sleep trying to explain what happened in the 2016 election. In fact, the coverage of President Trump by the “Big Three” broadcast networks — ABC, CBS and NBC — has remained 91 percent negative.

    It’s almost as if the media is working off the same script and afraid to report any thought, idea, or reality that is outside their own confusion. For example, if you’re a reporter, and your circle of contemporaries believe that President Trump is racist, sexist, greedy, heartless, and elitist, then it would strain credulity for you to report anything else, right?

    And this is much of what is polarizing our country.

    It’s why comedian Kathy Griffin thought it would be a good idea to pose with the bloodied, severed head of Donald Trump, and yet she still sold out her show at Carnegie Hall within 24 hours. Or why a crowd of marchers in Washington, DC erupted in applause when Madonna said that she’s “thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.”

    You see, partisanship is healthy in a free society because it promotes the debate of ideas.

    Polarization, on the other hand, is more about silencing ideas with which you disagree. It dehumanizes those whose opinions are different than yours, and doesn’t allow compromise, whatsoever.

    But a great example of the difference between being partisan or polarizing is the recent re-boot of the television show, Roseanne, which continues to draw a record number of viewers, more than anyone expected. While many say that Roseanne is a mouthpiece for conservatives and the millions of Americans who were so backwardly hillbilly-ignorant to vote for Trump, the show’s success is really a good example of how to disagree without being disagreeable.

    Actor Rob Lowe saw it immediately, and tweeted, “The secret to [Roseanne] massive ratings is that it celebrates people with huge political differences who are able to laugh and love together as they passionately disagree.”

    But we don’t do that any more, do we?

    How can you “laugh and love together” as a liberal, if you believe every conservative would like to reinstate segregation, pollute the drinking water, and take food out of the mouths of starving children? How can you “passionately disagree” as a conservative, if you believe every liberal only wants to grow the government, then tax the rich, and weaken our military?

    So whichever side of the aisle you may sit, or stand, it is more important than ever that we return to a healthy partisanship, not polarization, and come together as one nation, under God, and indivisible.

    You see, a divided America only encourages our enemies and weakens our courage And yet, we have Democrats traveling to foreign countries and disparaging the American voter, late-night talk show hosts demeaning the President and the First Lady, and a press corps that focuses on our differences and the trivial, rather than those principles that bind us together as a nation.

    And Abraham Lincoln was right, “A house divided against itself cannot stand”. This was a valuable and costly lesson of history and the real question is why aren’t more of us heeding it?

  • “Caring”

    “Have you ever written anything about helping the needy among us,” began an email I received from a reader, in response to a recent column I had written. “Democrats are trying to help our people who need help,” the reader continued, “not the ones who party at Mar A Lago and have plenty of money.”

    And there you have it.

    Democrats are “trying” to help (according to the reader above) and because of that, they necessarily “care” more about the needy than I do – or you do, or anyone else – who feel that supporting programs to help the needy is much more important than politicians who merely “care” more for the needy.

    Here’s what I’m talking about: Often times, those who “care” the most aren’t really helping. Consider this is the 54th year of Lyndon Johnson’s unrelenting war on poverty and yet after $15 trillion dollars in spending over these many years, the poverty rate today is virtually the same as it was in 1964. It’s become generational poverty, for all intents and purposes, and we are now spending close to $1 trillion per year on government assistance, with 43 million Americans still living below the poverty line. Yet, there’s no doubt those elected officials in Congress, back in 1964, cared very much for the poor.

    And there’s also no question that millions of Americans “care” deeply today about the poor (including the reader who wrote to me), but if “caring” was enough, we would have already solved most of the issues facing our communities, right? “Caring” may start us down the road to helping others, but we should hardly remain there. After all, we all know the road to you-know-where is well paved with good intentions.

    Good intentions simply aren’t enough when you want to make a difference.

    For example, do you care enough to make sure people are earning a “living wage,” rather than a “minimum” wage? If you do, I hope you also care enough to find at least 6.6 million Americans a new job, because that’s how many jobs will be lost, by hiking the minimum wage to $15 per hour (according to the Congressional Budget Office).

    The “Fight-for-15” campaign (as many call it) is a strong one – spanning all across the country – shaming anyone who opposes a minimum wage increase, as being inhuman, greedy, and heartless, for even considering the idea of denying millions of Americans a “living wage.”

    But on the other hand, though, how compassionate is it to increase unemployment among the least skilled and poorest among us? That’s exactly what a 2017 study of Seattle’s minimum wage hike showed: Just after nine months about 5,000 low-skill jobs had just disappeared. Not only that, but the number of hours worked (by those still employed) dropped by 3.5 million hours and overall wages dropped by $6 million.

    This was all consistent, also, with the results of a study from the University of Washington, which found that for every $1 worth of increased wages, there are $3 worth of lost employment opportunities.

    So with all of the data pouring in, regarding minimum wage increases from all across the country, you would think that even a “conservative Democrat” like Governor John Bel Edwards would see the handwriting on the wall, and steer our state clear of the rough waters that every other state has experienced when raising their minimum wage.

    But no, he doesn’t see it that way. In fact, he doesn’t understand why there is any opposition to “very modest” minimum wage increases, in the first place. And thus, he is urging approval of Senate Bill 162 in the state legislature, which would raise the minimum wage in Louisiana.

    So, this bring us back, full circle, to the question from the reader about Democrats “caring” more for the needy. But just look around to see what decades of politicians have done to our nation in the name of “caring” and you’ll see why “caring” is not nearly enough, if you want to truly help those in need.

    As economist Thomas Sowell explained, “If there is any lesson in the history of ideas, it is that good intentions tell you nothing about the actual consequences.”

    This should be the standard to which we hold our elected leaders accountable: Not by how much they care, but by how much good they actually accomplish.

  • Blame it on the Rain


    Perhaps not since 1989, when the number one song that year was Milli Vanilli’s “Blame it on the Rain,” has there been a more grand fraud, perpetrated upon the people of Louisiana, than the incessant and child-like reasoning of Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards. He blames anyone, everyone, and anything – but himself – for EVERYTHING.

    From our state’s economic woes to our criminal justice system, he has plenty of blame to go around. But is that consistent with his oft-mentioned, campaign mantra of “duty, honor and country,” as he proclaimed to voters, all around the state, back in 2015?

    We know that one of the mechanisms of denial is blaming others for our problems, and with the latest “done-nothing” special legislative session called by the Governor – which cost the taxpayers a million dollars – there’s more blame than ever being passed around. But most folks realize it for what it is – a lack of leadership from the Governor.

    “He’s trying to almost circumvent his leadership role by getting everyone else to tell him what to do,” says Representative Cameron Henry, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, but “that’s not how governors work.” In fact, that’s not how effective leadership works, anywhere, whether you are an elected official, a department manager, or head of your household.

    That’s because none of us can improve our situation unless we accept responsibility for ourselves, and reject the idea that someone else, or something else, is to blame for our circumstances in life – whether it happened last week, or from when you were a child, or even 150 years ago.

    But that hasn’t stopped John Bel Edwards.

    He has repeatedly blamed Bobby Jindal for the state’s nearly $1 billion “shortfall” and other budget problems, calling Jindal, “the most irresponsible governor who has ever governed Louisiana.”

    When he went before Congress last April, he blamed partisan politics for the tough questioning he received, during a Congressional hearing examining the response to 2016’s historic flooding. He said, “I can only attribute it to politics, but quite frankly I wasn’t surprised.”

    Then, last summer, the Governor continued his blame campaign and blamed House Republicans for not surrendering to his efforts to raise higher and higher taxes, even though Louisiana already has the highest sales taxes in the country, and the Governor has all but ignored solid recommendations from experts who had studied our state’s budget options for almost a year.

    With all that, he was just getting started with the blame game. In fact, after just one year in office, the Governor had corralled the major oil and gas companies into a room for a meeting, and demanded that they pay him now, or pay him later. You see, he was planning his most expensive blame ever – blaming the energy industry for eroding our state’s coastline. Nevermind that most folks attribute erosion to a lack of flood waters, not to mention that the oil and gas industry generates $73.8 billion in economic impact and provides jobs to nearly 300,000 Louisianans. Blame them anyway.

    And then just this month, the Governor blamed the House, for the special session failure that wasn’t “special” at all, saying, “Simply put, the failure of this special session is the result of a total lack of leadership and action in the House of Representatives – a spectacular failure of leadership.”

    But even if this were so, wasn’t he elected to lead our state? In the Bible, it says, “Where there is no vision, the people perish,” and we are indeed perishing. Where is his vision which he laments is so very absent within everyone else?

    You see, none of us can lead – and neither can John Bel Edwards – when we resort to blame, and won’t accept responsibility for our circumstances. In fact, when we blame, we hand over the power to others – the control of our very destiny – as if other “people” or the government will fix everything for us, like a genie in a bottle.

    Yes, liberals tend to blame. A lot. President Obama blamed America for ISIS because when we send in our military and occupy a country, like we did in Iraq, Obama said we “end up feeding extremism.” When the story broke about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky in 1998, Hillary Clinton blamed a “vast, right-wing conspiracy.” When Obama’s approval ratings declined, he blamed racism, saying, “There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black President.”

    And while blaming others makes some people feel better about themselves, in the end they are simply avoiding honest communication and accountability for their own actions.

    John C. Maxwell has a saying that goes like this: A leader is one who knows the way, goes the way, and shows the way.

    So why do we keep electing folks who know only how to blame the way? It’s a question, in this mid-term election year, we must know the answer to, or else we’ll only have ourselves to blame.