Louis R. Avallone

Category: Columns

  • Perfect Candidates

    Perfect Candidates

    There’s the U.S. Senate race in Alabama where the Republican candidate is being pressured to drop out of the race due to allegations of sexual misconduct from 40 years ago. Then there’s the sitting U.S. Senator Bob Menendez, in New Jersey, who has just been on trial for eight counts of bribery, three counts of fraud, one count of conspiracy, one count of making false statements, and one count of violating the Travel Act.

    How about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky? Or former Louisiana Congressman Bill Jefferson who stashed $90,000 in cash, in his freezer, that he intended to use as a foreign bribe? What about former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner couldn’t stop sending lewd photos to women on Twitter? And did President Obama tell the truth when he said, “If you want to keep your doctor, you can keep your doctor?”

    Then there were the Democrats in 1960 who may have manipulated the votes in Cook County enough to let John F. Kennedy beat Richard Nixon. Remember when President George H.W. Bush’s ended up not fulfilling his promise of, “Read my lips, no new taxes?” And of course, there was Hillary Clinton, who only forked out $10 million to control the votes of the largest political party in our country.

    And at a time where our country needs only our best and brightest in our elected offices, what sane person would deliberately choose to get involved in politics, and associate themselves with all of this mess? After all, don’t birds of a feather, flock together?

    I mean, if you’ve lived a life that’s been on the straight and narrow, why would you subject yourself – and your family, your business, your job, your very livelihood – to associate yourself with such a crowd, and possibly a litany of fabricated accusations from political rivals who have a “scorched earth” philosophy when it comes to winning?

    If you’re wondering the same, you’re not alone. In fact, a recent study of 18-29 year olds by Harvard University showed not only are young people disgusted with politics, and are skeptical of its usefulness to make meaningful change, but there is also now a reluctance of good candidates to run for public office.

    So, from where will the next generation of public servants be inspired to serve our communities, when only 1 in 3 believe running for public office is honorable?

    That’s hard to say. We have fewer engaged voters today, than ever before, and this will eventually reduce the pool of talented candidates to a handful of those barely worth keeping in office at all. But our country must also decide if convicting candidates and elected officials in social media or otherwise via the Internet, regardless of the veracity of the charges alleged, is what’s best for our country.

    Sometimes, does it feel that we are simply castigating one politician, whose sins are known, for another politician, whose sins we simply haven’t discovered yet?

    Now, please understand, I’m the first one in line to expect a higher standard from myself, as well as from those whom we cast our ballots to lead our cities, represent us in Baton Rouge, and make our nation’s laws in Washington. But having high standards, and electing less-than-perfect public servants are not necessarily mutually exclusive, either.

    I mean, do we all need to be defined by where we came from, or should it be about where we’re going? Unless you allow it to, why does your future need to look like your past?

    So, yes, it’s important to hold folks accountable, whether it’s a high crime or moral transgression – but there’s no man or woman who is without a defect, or burden. A more accurate indicator of someone’s future should be present moment, and what they are doing right now.

    Searching for a perfect public servant may be expecting something that never was – and never will be. And unless our country decides differently, the folks willing to run for office and put up with that expectation, will go find something else – more honorable to do.

  • Don’t Bet Against Us

    Don’t Bet Against Us

    Last August 1, 2016 – just days after the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia – I wrote a column right here about Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. Hillary was finally the Democratic Party’s nominee, but none of it made sense.

    For starters, I wrote about how in-the-world could 68% of Americans believe that Hillary Clinton is not honest and trustworthy – which was an all-time worst in her political career – yet the Democratic Party still nominated her as their candidate for President of the United States?

    To put that into perspective, consider that even a CNN poll – before the election – found only about 1 out of 3 Americans would have felt “proud” to have her as President. In fact, Hillary’s approval rating today is even lower than Donald Trump’s – and that’s with unprecedented media bias against Trump, according to a national Quinnipiac University poll.

    Even after Hillary was the nominee, almost one-half of Democratic primary voters still wished Bernie Sanders was the Party’s nominee. So how did Hillary still manage to “pull a rabbit out of the hat” and win the nomination?

    It just didn’t make sense – at least not to honest people – as to why Hillary would immediately hire the former (and disgraced) chair of the Democratic Party, Debbie Wasserman Schultz last summer, even after 19,000 hacked emails were uncovered, showing that the Democratic Party (through Debbie) had favored Hillary all during the primary season, and virtually sabotaged Bernie’s presidential ambitions completely.

    In fact, Debbie Wasserman Schultz even relayed questions ahead of debates to Hillary during the Democratic primary.

    None of this made any sense, at all. Until now.

    And a few days ago we learned exactly the reason why – Hillary Clinton “bought” the Democratic Party for $10 million, long before she ever won the nomination.  

    Here’s how it happened, according to Donna Brazile, the former interim chair of the Democratic Party: You see, the Democratic Party was $24 million dollars in debt after the 2012 election, and President Obama was raising money too slowly to keep up with the Party’s financial obligations. And by 2015, the Party was spending almost $4 million per month.

    And that’s where Hillary Clinton stepped in. She offered to pay off that remaining debt, but it would come with strings attached, including control of how the Party spent its money going forward. Additionally, Hillary would use the Party as cover for skirting around campaign finance laws because now donors could contribute the maximum to her campaign directly, and then to the Democratic Party, which in turn would be funneled back to Hillary’s campaign.

    She then concocted the same scheme with each of the state Democratic parties, whereby she would send them the donors and they would send her back the cash.

    Ridiculous. But even though this was well hidden from the American people last year at this time, the American people still got it right. They knew that often “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” and there has been a lot of smoke when it comes to Hillary – almost 30 years of it.

    From the Benghazi murders to the FBI investigation of her handling of classified information – to the millions of dollars donated by foreign governments to the Clinton Foundation, and the lack of transparency in how those dollars were spent, not to mention the rigged Party nomination process, the American people knew something was wrong, even as the delegates on the floor of the Democratic national convention last summer were chanting, “I’m with Hillary!”

    You see, the American people got it right. Just like Warren Buffet once said, “It’s never paid to bet against America” and to the chagrin of liberals everywhere, Donald Trump is living proof of it.

  • Kept Equal

    Kept Equal

    Think about it: There’s not a single day that passes where the headlines don’t include a story of growing racial tensions, such as the removal of civil war monuments. Or the NFL players protesting during the singing of the National Anthem. Or reporters and Hollywood-types calling out President Trump (and all of his supporters) as racists and bigots. You could go on and on, with example after example.

    Many had hoped that the 2008 election of the nation’s first black president would improve race relations, especially among black voters – but it didn’t. Today, nearly 3 out of 4 Americans say race relations in this country are bad. Compared to 2008, this this number has more than tripled.

    For some, this uncomfortableness in our country is what what we need right now, if we are going to achieve meaningful change – especially if you listen to San Antonio Spurs coach, Gregg Popavich. Just last month he said, “There has to be an uncomfortable element in the discourse for anything to change…People have to be made to feel uncomfortable. And especially white people, because we’re comfortable.”

    But are white people really “comfortable?” Then why would whites commit suicide at twice the rate of blacks? And why do white men, who are presented as the most privileged of all in America, commit 70% of all suicides and yet they represent only 30% of our population? Whatever the reasons, clearly more whites than blacks consider life not worth living.

    From protest to protest, though, it’s inequality of outcomes at the heart of our racial tensions. Unequal justice in our courts. Unequal education. Unequal pay. Unequal footing.

    But is inequality of outcomes inherently wrong? If you are a Christian, or otherwise religious, you may remember Jesus’ “Parable of the Talents” in Matthew 25. In this parable, each of the workers was given money to manage, “according to their abilities,” and as the parable unfolds, the results were different for each of them. So, if Jesus recognizes that we all have different abilities, and therefore we will all have unequal outcomes, then are we trying to make equality of outcomes into what it never was, and never will be?

    Consider this: During the 19th century, and especially after the Civil War, equality meant everyone should have the same opportunity to make what he or she could of his or her capacities, regardless of race, religion, belief, or social class. But later, into the 20th century, this changed.

    Equality became more about the idea that we should all be equal in terms of income or living standard. In other words, more and more folks began thinking that life should be arranged so everybody will end at the finish line at the same time, instead of just making sure everyone begins at the starting line at the same time.

    But can we remain a free people if we guarantee equal outcomes? I mean, if we are all going to end up at the finish line at the same time, some people will need to be held back after the race starts, because no two of us are the same, and this raises a very serious problem for freedom. Most times, whenever societies have put equality before freedom, they end up with neither, and yet “equal outcomes” seems to be the objective of the racial discord in our country.

    Some of you may not be convinced that we can’t end up at the finish line, all at the same time, and still remain a free people. But think about this: Would you take much pleasure in watching sporting events if the players were not among the best in the world? Or would you enjoy movies as much if they didn’t cast the very best actors?

    Of course not. That’s the same reason why there’s no equal opportunity for me to play guard alongside LeBron James with Cleveland Cavaliers, or co-star alongside Harrison Ford in his next movie. The fact is, life is not fair, and I’m okay with that because I’d rather it be free, than fair.

    You only need to look at societies like China and Russia, where equality of outcomes has been their basic goal, and you’ll see the tyranny foisted upon their people, in the absence of putting freedom above all else.

    If liberty is embodied in the creed, “all men are created equal,” does that likewise mean that we shall all be kept equal, as well?

  • Shame on You

    Shame on You

    A recent survey found that more than 96% of women feel guilty at least once a day, and almost half of them experience guilt up to 4 times a day. If you are a woman, you know exactly what that’s like. Culturally, women are encouraged to empathize, or otherwise take the perspective of the other, so much more than men. Susan Carrell, author of Escaping Toxic Guilt, says, “Women feel guilt when they don’t think they are being good enough in their various roles – especially as wife, mother and daughter.”

    Psychologist Benjamin Voyer explains, “Guilt is what psychologists call an ‘other-focused emotion’ – that is an emotion that involves thinking about others,” and it’s typically a female trait. Maybe it’s balancing life as a working mom, or eating chocolate, or spending too much money – whatever it is, women are likely storing up guilt everyday like a last-minute squirrel collecting nuts before the first snowfall of winter.

    So what do women do with all this guilt? They make up for their actions in some way to repair whatever “mistake” that made them feel so guilty in the first place.

    They may overcompensate by spending more time with their children (and less at work), or eating more carrots (instead of chocolate), or clipping every coupon (instead of spending). Or, they vote Democrat (instead of Republican) during the 2018 mid-term elections. Really?

    Yes. And if the Democrats’ tactics start to work, the same women who supported Trump in 2016 won’t be voting for anyone who even resembles Trump in the 2018 mid-term elections.

    Not out of being an informed voter, but out of being shamed.

    Within just the last 30 days, the Democrats have stepped up their offensive on women who voted for Trump. First, Hillary Clinton said women who support Trump are “publicly disrespecting themselves.”

    Then former first lady Michelle Obama added, “Any woman who voted against Hillary Clinton voted against their own voice,” and not only do these women dislike themselves, but she said women voted for Trump because “they only like the things they were told to like.”

    And if that wasn’t enough, even Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg chimed in and said yes, sexism was a “major, major factor” in Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump last November.

    And then came along tennis icon Billie Jean King who slammed a whole group of women because of their skin color and said, “I’m upset with the white women that voted for Mr. Trump. I think they really don’t like themselves…”

    Look, none of these attacks on women are coincidental. I believe it is part of a concerted strategy for the 2018 mid-term elections. It started in January, when Democratic women in Congress wore white during President Trump’s first major Congressional address. White was chosen because it is the historical color of the suffrage movement, but also because it “shows we don’t want to go back” or roll back women’s rights, said Representative Lois Frankel, at the time.

    Roll back women’s rights? How about starting with not shaming women for the free exercise of their right to vote? Seriously.

    But Democrats have lied to women for years. Remember in 2010 when the Democrat Party warned everyone of the impending Republican “war on women?” They predicted how Republicans were bent on restricting women’s rights, from reproductive rights to protecting women from violence to making it easier to discriminate against women in the workplace. 

    Well, Democrats lost that argument in the 2010 elections – by a landslide – it was all fake news. But that’s not stopping them now from pivoting that war on women and shaming women for what they have done to themselves by voting for Trump.

    What they have done to themselves? Really? What about what was done to women during 8 years of the Obama administration? The poverty rate among women is at a 20-year high. The labor force participation rate of women is now the lowest in more than 25 years. More women today are out of the labor force and not collecting a paycheck.

    Actually, under the Democrat’s watch, 3.7 million more women fell into poverty, and the median annual wages for women dropped. And to add insult to injury, 92.3% of the jobs lost during Mr. Obama’s first term were lost by women.

    And now Democrats want to add to the guilt so many women are carrying around by shaming them as subservient, non-thinking, self-loathing, “do-as-I’m told” voters, all because they didn’t support the Democrat candidate?

    No, it’s Democrats who should be ashamed of themselves. The women who supported Trump aren’t guilty of anything – other than the good sense to know the difference.

  • Kicking the Can

    Kicking the Can

    “Kicking the can down the road” is to put off confronting a difficult issue or making an important decision, typically on a continuing basis. Basically, it’s postponing the inevitable. It’s one of the reasons our elected officials won’t fix anything, and why they haven’t fixed Medicare or Social Security. Or tax reform and illegal immigration. Or education.

    And, it turns out, “kicking the can down the road” is also how North Korea developed the capability to produce a nuclear blast twice that of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, in 1945.

    You see, it was President Clinton who cleared the way for North Korea to go nuclear in 1994 by offering them oil, in return for them abandoning the production of plutonium, which is a key ingredient in nuclear weapons. President Clinton said, at the time, the agreement represents “an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.” But soon afterwards, North Korea would be cheating on that agreement by developing highly enriched uranium, and the Clinton administration ended up “kicking the can” to the next President.

    That’s when President Bush reneged on the oil reserves Clinton had promised to North Korea, but by then, the nuclear genie was already out of the bottle. North Korea now had little incentive to negotiate away its storehouse of plutonium or to stop enriching uranium, and the can was “kicked” to the next President, again.

    By the time President Obama was elected, he was implementing his self-styled “strategic patience” policy (or “do nothing” policy) with regards to North Korea, even after learning from U.S. intelligence sources in 2013 that North Korea was capable of constructing miniaturized nuclear weapons that could be used as warheads for missiles. Still, Obama said he did not believe that North Korea could make a nuclear weapon small enough to fit atop a missile.

    That ended up being a miscalculation on his part and he ended up “kicking the can” too.

    So now, here we are with President Trump. Knowing this path from 1994 to 2017 helps explain why Trump said last month that the United States would unleash on North Korea its “fire, fury and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before.” You see, Trump realizes, he has no place to “kick the can” and has to fix this right now.

    Of course, liberals nearly had a conniption fit when he started talking tough about North Korea. They said this proves he is mentally unfit, or is otherwise suffering from a personality disorder of some kind. This makes it plain, they argue, that he does not take the advice of experts because he makes brash statements without regard to official State Department protocol. Some even say the White House is guided “based what side of the bed Trump got up on in the morning.”

    Of course, compared to folks like Bill, Hillary, Barack, and Bernie, who all feel that climate change is the greatest threat facing America, it’s hard for liberals to see Trump’s hawkish comments as anything other than being completely off the rails.

    But what is Trump’s alternative, really? By doing nothing, or continuing Obama’s “strategic patience” policy, we can lose everything – including our country. And yet many Americans condemn Trump’s strong words as being the language of a right-wing loon – they’re afraid of being politically incorrect.

    Yet we have terrorism around the world. Iran is moving ever closer to nuclear capability and is a state-sponsor of terrorism. Russia is aligning itself with North Korea, along with anyone who thumbs their nose at the United States. And China is modernizing its weapons with fighter jets, developing hypersonic missiles, and building ballistic missile submarines.

    Plus, our own nation’s borders are so porous that even the U.S. Border Patrol admits that they don’t know who is coming across the border, or whether they wish us well or ill.

    And yet we have folks worried about Trump’s strong words for Kim Jung Un.

    The bottom line is that the strong words from this President, whether about North Korea or any other matter, reflect his conviction that we can no longer “kick the can.” We’re at the end of our road, and without decisive action from this President, we’re going to end up with more than just a stubbed toe.

  • The Power of Taking a Stand

    The Power of Taking a Stand

    Are you a people-pleaser? If you’re not, I bet you know one.

    You know the person I am talking about, right?

    That person in almost everyone’s life who tries to make sure that everyone is happy – or that no one is disappointed. It’s the person in your life that intervenes whenever something is wrong, and tries to make peace wherever there is conflict.

    And we tend to vote for “people-pleasers,” too. Our government is filled with them. These are the candidates that promise everything to everyone.

    And while we may differ significantly on our opinion of President Trump (pick any subject), virtually every Presidential tracking poll confirms he is not a “people-pleaser,” at least when it comes to his job approval rating by most Americans. Nearly 54% of Americans “disapprove” of Trump’s job performance as President, and the polling shows it’s because he’s taken a stand on so many politically incorrect issues.

    For clarification, though, what does it really mean to take a stand? It means that one must take a firm position on an issue. For example, the demonstrators in Tiananmen Square who protested for greater freedom in China, or Martin Luther King, Jr. who sought to end racial discrimination and segregation in our country.

    Well, President Trump has definitely taken a stand on the issues, and it’s making a difference.

    He took a stand against illegal immigration, and within 60 days after he was inaugurated, the number of people apprehended while crossing from Mexico fell to its lowest level in 17 years (according to Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly).

    He took a stand for “America first” and that he would create good jobs for American workers, and the jobless rate is now the lowest since 2001. In fact, our country is almost at full employment today (the best in 16 years), according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    He took a stand that he wanted lower tax rates for Americans in every tax bracket, and to simplify the tax code for businesses, and now the stock market has hit record highs. In fact, the market has hit new closing highs 23 times during during the Trump administration.

    He took a stand to defeat radical Islamic terrorism, and now ISIS has suffered severe losses recently, including the recapture of the Iraqi city of Mosul by Iraqi government forces, plus the U.S. led coalition forces have now regained close to a third of the territory previously controlled by ISIS in Syria.

    Trump also took a stand against wasteful government spending, explaining in his inaugural address that the days of “reap[ing] the rewards of government” were over. And today, regulatory costs imposed on Americans has been reduced by $70 billion.

    The bottom-line to all of this is that sometimes in life you just have to take a stand and say “no.” “No” to continued deficit spending by the federal government, “no” to government-run health care, “no” to higher and higher taxes, “no” to the redistribution of wealth by the government, etc.

    Taking a stand may be hard for people-pleasers. Or the optimists who see the glass as half-full and that every cloud has a silver lining. I get it.

    But I figure it like Martin Luther King, Jr. put it: “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter.” And whether that’s immigration policy, or an election, or deciding whether your town will build a multi-million dollar sports arena, it all matters. After all, as they say, if you don’t stand for something or you’ll fall for anything.

  • Dear Shreveport…

    Dear Shreveport…

    Dear Shreveport,

    I know you have been through some really tough stuff. The drop in oil prices in the 1980s, the bankruptcies and foreclosures – you have really never been the same since then. The 7,500 jobs lost at the Western Electric plant – that was a rough patch, too, I know. I mean, so many good people have left you behind for greener pastures, and after 40 years, some just never came back.

    I was happy to hear the news, though, about your discovering the Haynesville Shale in 2008, and just couldn’t believe when the drop in oil prices came so fast, and caused so many rigs (and jobs) to leave for other states. Then you had to cope with the GM Plant closing in 2012. I was so sorry to hear about those thousands of jobs disappearing – good paying ones, too, I know. And even though you knew it was coming, you’re really never prepared for something like that.

    But enough of all that talk…it’s important to remember the good times, too, right? Like when the census came out in 1970 and it showed no growth in population? That’s when you came up with a plan to develop an interstate highway from Shreveport to south Louisiana (I-49), and to complete the Inner Loop, and get graduate courses at LSUS – and population did grow.

    But before that, in the late 1960s, remember how you would go down to Baton Rouge to meet with Governor John McKeithen, over and over? That’s how LSU-Shreveport and Southern University got started here, and most importantly, that’s how you got the medical school started. And none of that would have happened without you believing in you.

    Now, I know you are probably feeling hurt, angry, frustrated, or shut down with how everything is around you today. Maybe there’s not much that could make you feel better at this point. But I know this: you have to start treating yourself better, like the best Shreveport you’ve ever been.

    And from what you’ve been saying about yourself recently, it makes me very sad.

    Ever since this Pelican’s “G-League” proposal has been out there, you’ve let everyone know how much you stink.

    You’ve posted on social media about how “the people that sit on the selection committee have sense not to select such a crime ridden city for any new ball team” and that you’ve “never fully understood what creates a successful venue.” And then you posted, “Get out now, folks. It ain’t gonna get better in Shreveport!”

    Look, you can’t keep talking to yourself this way. I don’t know if this Pelican’s “G-League” is a good idea or not, but this stinking thinking has to stop. All that stinking thinking does is make you feel defeated, discouraged, and depressed. Haven’t you ever heard that you are what you think about?

    Instead of all this negative talk, how about asking, “What can I do differently this time, to make sure I don’t mess up again?” Yes, over the last 20 years, seven semi-professional teams tried to make Shreveport-Bossier their home. But again, the question is not how horrible you think you are or unworthy. The question is, “Can it be done differently, this time, to get a better result?”

    Perhaps this just isn’t the right time for you to do this basketball deal. That’s okay, but that’s no reason for you to bad mouth yourself to the world. How you speak to yourself is important. The Bible tells us this also, “For as he thinks in his heart, so is he.” (Proverbs 23:7).

    And I do think some of it is the people you are hanging around. You keep letting people lead you around every 4 years or so who don’t have a plan, and it has to stop. They may intend to do good, but if intentions are all that were needed to be successful, or to stop smoking or to lose weight, then we’d all be a lot happier and healthier.

    You had a plan of action back when you were going to Baton Rouge and meeting with Governor McKeithen in the late 1960s. And you had a plan when you wanted to build I-49 and make the Red River navigable in the 1970s, and attracted General Motors.

    You have been at your best when you’ve had a game plan, and players on your team who could execute the strategy. Right now, you simply don’t believe you can win.

    For too many years, I know you feel like you have been living in the shadow of your more successful brother in Dallas, and that you’re not as fun and pretty as your sister, south Louisiana, but it doesn’t have to be that way, Shreveport.

    I know there is greatness within you, and you should remind yourself of the same, because it’s time to change not only how you talk to yourself, but the way you look and your so-called friends, because you’ll never become what you need to be by remaining what you are.

  • How Patriotic Are You?

    How Patriotic Are You?

    You remember when Vice-President Joe Biden said it’s time “to be patriotic…time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut,” when talking about more Americans paying higher and higher federal income taxes? Or when Michelle Obama stirred controversy in 2008 when she said, “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country,” when talking about her husband’s growing campaign to be President?

    And more recently, did you read where former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick (who chooses to kneel instead of stand for the national anthem) is being praised by many in the media as being the most “patriotic” of all Americans because he’s exercising his freedom of speech by kneeling. There’s even a civil rights rally being planned, in honor of him.

    Really? Well, none of that is patriotic – from Joe Biden to Michelle Obama to Colin Kaepernick – not to me, at least. In fact, the dictionary defines patriotism this way: love for or devotion to one’s country.

    So, how patriotic are you really? Do you only feel “love or devotion” to your country during certain times? Such as only when Congress passes legislation you approve of (such as raising taxes on the rich), or when a court decision is handed down that supports your position on an issue (such as on gun control or abortion)? Or do you only “feel” patriotic when your candidate gets elected to the White House (instead of wanting to blow it up when your candidate doesn’t)?

    You see, someone who insists they are patriotic in these ways, even when they are disrespectful or disloyal to their country, is like a husband who insists he’s faithfully devoted to his wife, but only when he’s happy with her. That’s just doesn’t work. Like a marriage, patriotism is all about unconditional love and devotion.

    Some may ask, “Devoted to what?” Well, America was founded upon an idea that, “All men are created equal” and as patriotic Americans, we are devoted to this idea, regardless of where we were born, which political party controls the White House, or Congress, which laws are signed into law, or vetoed. And even despite the injustices of the past.

    We were the first country established – not by ethnicity or conquest – but by this philosophy, and unfortunately, too many younger Americans simply don’t know what America is, and what she represents. And it shows. Young adults rank among the least willing to say they are extremely proud to be Americans – and they represent the largest decline in American pride, since 2003.

    Perhaps that is because American history is no longer required in many high schools throughout the country. Large numbers of Americans graduate without even the most basic sense of what it means to be an American. Is it any wonder that more and more young Americans don’t feel a sense of pride in our country?

    And like a domino-effect, this lack of understanding of our American history diminishes the importance of civic duties, such as voting, serving in the military, volunteering in your community, and so on – all of which are suffering declining participation in our country, with each passing year.

    But that’s not the worst of it. The absence of American history in our schools is bad enough, but when schools are teaching that America is an imperialist, corporate-driven oppressor – well, that’s a different story, altogether.

    As a result, faith in the American dream is non-existent for many young Americans. They have also seen first-hand the crash of the housing market, small businesses crumble, and double-digit unemployment rates. Going to college has only resulted in massive amounts of debt and landed them jobs where they can’t possibly earn enough to pay it all back, and the country is currently more than $19 trillion in debt.

    But remember this, about patriotism, whether everything is going your way, or not: Our soldiers and sailors don’t take an oath to a person. They don’t swear allegiance to a political party or individual state. They promise to risk their lives to protect a document, a contract, and an idea that “all men are created equal.”

    And if we want our next generation of Americans to do the same, and to love this country as much as we do, then we need to teach our children early where we’ve been, so they’ll understand better where we can go.

    We can’t “unteach” those young Americans who are the least willing to say they are extremely proud to be Americans, and we can’t start over either. So, in the words of Zig Ziglar, let’s begin now, and make a new ending.

  • Seeing the Trees for the Forest

    Seeing the Trees for the Forest

    You’ve heard the saying, “Don’t miss the forest for the trees,” right? That’s when someone is trying to make the point that you shouldn’t get so caught up in the small details that you fail to understand the bigger picture. Well, in the case of this whole healthcare debacle in our country, and the shenanigans in Congress, the “bigger picture” doesn’t mean a darn thing here without getting caught up in small details, and here’s what I mean:

    I know that many think that anyone proposing the repeal of Obamacare is a heartless so-and-so, or an insensitive you-know-what. But Obamacare is already repealed – for all intents and purposes – because it’s collapsing under its own weight.

    With or without any political party approval or bipartisan support, irrespective of the mainstream media’s stance, and regardless of how many protests are organized, or members of Congress vocally express their distaste for President Trump – Obamacare care is repealing itself.

    The average health insurance premium on the individual market has soared by a staggering 75 percent – just in the past four years. 31 million Americans can’t afford the deductibles because of these rising costs, and have flat-out stopped paying the premiums. We were supposed to have saved $2,500 per year if Obamacare became law, but premium costs today are $2,000 more today than they were just in 2013, and double-digit premium increases are expected in 2018.

    The reason for this is that health insurers lost over $2 billion dollars in 2016 and rather than expand coverage, these same insurers are pulling out of the exchanges set-up by Obamacare, altogether (and just so you know, two-thirds of the exchanges have already gone out of business, too). Ironically, the exchanges were set-up so people could “shop” for insurance plans, often with the help of government subsidies.

    But for 1 out of 3 Americans today, there is no “shopping” for insurance plans, unless your idea of shopping is like when Henry Ford famously told his customers they could have any color they wanted, as long as it was black. You see, with so many health insurers leaving the marketplace, too many of us have only one choice of an insurer under Obamacare – and that means we have essentially no choice, at all.

    If you’re wondering if it could get any worse, the answer is yes. The number of insurers applying to serve the federal marketplace has dropped 38% for 2018, and it’s now reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation that just over 25,000 people in Ohio, Indiana and Nevada are at risk of having no options in the exchanges next year.

    To add even more confusion, we’re told that repealing Obamacare now will result in nearly 32 million uninsured in this country, but the Associated Press reports only around 10 million Americans are paying any Obamacare premiums, whatsoever.

    But, some will interrupt here to say: Isn’t some increase in the number of Americans with health insurance better than “nothing” at all? And, even though “Obamacare” is not perfect, isn’t it better now because you can’t be denied coverage for any reason, or be charged more based on your health status or gender, or be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions?

    Yes, theoretically, yes.

    But if 31 million Americans can’t afford the deductibles because of rising costs, and millions of others have flat-out stopped paying the premiums for the very insurance policies intended to afford them healthcare coverage, then hasn’t the care and comfort of the least among us only worsened? And all under the pretense that something is better than nothing?

    You see now why sometimes it’s better to see the trees, instead of the forest? Getting caught up in the details is not something that Congress has done in a very long time. And that explains a whole lot, doesn’t it?

  • Nothing But Net

    Nothing But Net

    Sometimes, the idea of something, and the thing itself, aren’t always the same. In other words, the idea is much rosier than the reality. For example, many people like the idea of owning a boat, rather than the reality of actually maintaining one. Many like the idea of eating healthier or exercising, but not so much the reality of changing your diet or going to the gym.

    Some might say the idea of having a NBA G League team in Shreveport is much more appealing than the reality of what it actually costs to have one. For example, College Park, GA is spending between $20 and $40 million to build an arena for the Atlanta Hawks’ G league team – and that’s funded with taxpayer dollars in a city with just 15,000 residents.

    The Washington Wizards are also building an arena for their G League team with taxpayer dollars at a whopping cost of $65 million.

    And now the City of Shreveport is considering building a $25 million arena with taxpayer dollars for a G league team owned by the New Orleans’ Pelicans. In a news release, Mayor Tyler said building this arena will be important as a “significant economic driver in job creation and attracting outside tourism for the city’s future success.”

    Many would agree with her, and may even call the arena an “investment” in our area’s future. Perhaps it is, but the University of Maryland has studied the economic impacts of professional sports franchises and stadiums and found the following to be true: “No matter what cities or geographical areas are examined, no matter what estimators are used, no matter what model specifications are used, and no matter what variables are used, articles published in peer-reviewed economics journals contain almost no evidence that professional sports franchises and facilities have a measurable economic impact on the economy.” Ouch.

    In St. Tammany Parish, they were considering building an arena for the Pelicans’ G League team too (like us), but they looked at their numbers and said, “Essentially we have $22 million in costs and $15 million in funding. Building, or retrofitting, a venue for a basketball team is unfortunately not a priority at this time.”

    Some in Shreveport feel that same way – and it’s not because they are not basketball fans, or they’re just stuck in their old ways and don’t want to do anything new. Instead, it’s a matter of economic priorities in a city where the tax base is shrinking and there are simply bigger fish to fry first, so to speak.

    But if you like fish like I do – especially fried catfish – as much as you love basketball, let’s find a way to make this G League a reality. Let’s not use taxpayer dollars to do it, though.

    Instead, let’s do it with a Kickstarter campaign. For $25 million. That’s right. And why not?

    You see, Kickstarter.com is the largest crowd-funding website in the world, where entrepreneurs have raised millions of dollars selling concepts of products – which haven’t even been created yet (like the new arena) – from thousands of supporters who want to see those concepts come to fruition.

    If Mayor Tyler uses the crowd-funding model from Kickstarter to bring her arena concept to reality, and 25,000 supporters in Caddo, Bossier, Webster, and Desoto were to purchase two (2) $500 ticket packages for the new Pelicans’ G League team (entitling you to special ticket prices, discounted gear, etc.), we will have paid for the new arena upfront, and that’s before any monies are negotiated for naming rights, sponsorships, concessions and dining, club seating and suites, or rental income throughout the year.

    Of course, many of the supporters won’t necessarily be huge basketball fans who will go to every game, but they still want to support the idea, without wanting to saddle their children and grandchildren with debt, for decades to come.

    So yes, crowd-funding (and not taxpayer-funding) of an arena is worth a shot here – from the free throw line.

    If it’s done right, it’ll be “nothing but net.”