Louis R. Avallone

Blog

  • Crawfish, Dead Plants and Mary: The Season of Health Care

    Crawfish, Dead Plants and Mary: The Season of Health Care

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    I’m not sure if you have heard, but crawfish is so scarce this year that they are double in price, compared to this time last year. After all, crawfish farmers in southern Louisiana have had to endure twice the number of freezes this year, four wintry precipitation events, and one of the coldest months ever in January. During cold weather, crawfish tend to stay at the bottom of their ponds or streams, under dead plants, rather than swimming out and about, and eating and growing.

    Well, crawfish are not the only ones having a difficult time this year. 32,864 Louisianans have signed up for Obamacare, while nearly three times as many Louisianans – 92,739 – have received cancellation notices, not to mention the expected loss of over 35,000 jobs in Louisiana this year due to Obamacare’s implementation. Health care premiums for healthy Louisiana women are expected to increase by an average of 266 percent this year, making it harder for women to make their own health care choices. And to add insult to injury, health care costs continue to rise for everyone. Now comes news that Louisiana insurers, including the largest – Blue Cross – is not insuring all pre-existing conditions, even though that is a central tenet of the Obamacare law.

    Meanwhile, Mary Landrieu is hoping that her record – like Louisiana crawfish during cold weather – will remain out of sight, and covered up by dead plants at the bottoms of Louisiana’s many ponds and streams. After all, it was Landrieu who went to the floor of the U.S. Senate in 2009 in support of Obamacare and claimed that, “I am voting for this bill because it achieves the goals I laid out at the beginning of this debate: It drives down costs and expands affordable health care choices for millions of families and small businesses in Louisiana …” But in reality, nothing could be farther from the truth.

    Out of the allegedly tens of millions of uninsured Americans that were supposedly dying in the streets, according to the Democrats in 2009, because there was no government subsidized health care, only a fraction of Americans (six million) have actually “signed up” for health insurance through the government’s website. It is estimated that just as many Americans have also had their policies canceled.

    Nonetheless, the White House is celebrating right now, despite the fact that they have no idea how many of those who “signed up” were already insured, or how many are simply replacing coverage because their previous insurer cancelled their policy due to Obamacare. And we don’t really know what “signed up” really means either. HHS officials say they have no idea how many folks who “signed up” have actually paid their premiums, thereby activating coverage. Really, they don’t know this? It is estimated, though, that as much as 20 percent of folks “signed up” have not paid any premiums at all, which means they will soon have their policies canceled, as well.

    Furthermore, for those six million already “signed up,” we don’t know how many were just comparison shopping online, and only added a plan to their virtual shopping cart to see what the cost would be. As crazy as it sounds, we know that the White House has counted folks as having “signed up” if they just made it to the last screen of the online purchase process. That’s like giving me credit for going to exercise at the gym just because I showed up and took a look around.

    But that’s typical liberal thinking: Focus on the intentions, don’t worry about the facts.

    Unfortunately, the facts speak more loudly here. It was Landrieu who told Louisianans in 2009 that if you liked your plan you could keep your plan. It was Landrieu who said she wouldn’t support a health care bill that had a small business mandate, even going as far as saying, on the floor of the Senate, that “the bill also has no employer mandate.”

    It was Landrieu who incredulously claimed, just this past December, that this “law is working well” and that anyone who said otherwise is part of the “intentional” misinformation campaign. But Louisianans see the handwriting on the wall. They understand the Congressional Budget Office has forecasted that the same number of Americans will be uninsured in 2016 with Obamacare as would have been uninsured without Obamacare, and that the Democrats in Washington have taken Landrieu, and all of Louisiana, for a joy ride through a little town called, “Ridiculous,” just outside of “Insanity City,” on their way to “Doesn’t Make Sense.”

    This leaves little doubt why Democrat party registration has dropped to 46 percent in Louisiana, which is a new low, and that Landrieu is the only Democrat left in statewide office. It’s why President Obama lost Louisiana by 18 percentage points in the 2012 election, and why it is even more incredulous Landrieu still voted 97 percent of the time with Obama last year.

    So as this election year progresses, and as more and more Louisianans learn the facts, let’s make sure that the crawfish won’t be the only ones getting out and about, and growing. If we don’t, we’ll all soon be paying double for a lot more than just crawfish.

  • Policy Disasters: Politicians Don’t Have to Follow the Path of “Learned Helplessness”

    Policy Disasters: Politicians Don’t Have to Follow the Path of “Learned Helplessness”

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    It’s called “learned helplessness.”

    It’s a state where you have given up hope and effort that your actions will affect your outcomes, even when later you’re in a position where control of the outcome is completely within your reach. It’s why women stay in abusive relationships, or why the poor feel that no matter how hard they work, or how much education they get, they will never escape their present lot in life. And it must be why so many folks don’t even bother to vote, or take part in our political process, because they’re discouraged that nothing gets done or will change anyway.

    It’s a problem in politics because the important issues facing our nation are so vast, and the solutions seem so monumental. For many, the mountain is simply too big to climb, or the hole dug is too deep to get out of, so why bother?

    But it doesn’t have to be this way. Today, our nation is buried under a mountain of debt, 5 million Americans have had their health insurance policies cancelled as a result this administration’s policies, the gap between the rich and poor has widened to a point not seen since the Great Depression, respect for our nation is dwindling as world leaders seemingly taunt the United States and unemployment is so rampant that there are three unemployed people for every job opening in our country today.

    With all of that said, it’s clear that too many Americans suffer from “learned helplessness” when it comes to electing the same politicians, election cycle after election cycle, even when real change, and the choice to send someone else to Washington or Baton Rouge, is plainly within their reach.

    For these folks, they say, “Why bother?” I say, “Hogwash.”

    You don’t have to be expert in all of the important issues of our day to escape “learned helplessness,” or to believe that what you do can make a difference. You only need to look at example after example of liberal policies that have caved in on themselves, and litter the scrap yards of life.

    The British tried appeasing Hitler in the 1930s, because they were convinced war was immoral, and that we must have “peace in our time.” That approach didn’t work out, of course. Hitler became stronger, and millions more died through appeasement, than would have otherwise. And what are we doing in the Middle East today? Appeasement.

    Or what about the administration’s proposal to raise the minimum wage? If you already know that unskilled minorities, aged 16 to 19 years old, are already experiencing a 37.8 percent unemployment rate, and you raise the minimum wage, how do you help these folks when they would be the first workers to be let go after the minimum wage is raised?

    Or how about this example? Liberals are always talking about unfettered, free access to contraceptives, and how abstinence is simply old-fashioned, foolhardy thinking. Yet, in example after example, the well-intentioned liberal thinking falls short, time after time. In New York City, for example, schools distribute thousands of the “morning after pill,” as well as prescriptions for birth-control pills, intrauterine devices, hormonedelivering injections, etc. to help to prevent pregnancies.

    However, and despite liberal intentions, one of every 10 abortions occurs in New York. More abortions are performed on minors, more late term abortions, and more repeat abortions, are performed in New York City than anywhere else in the country. If this is one of the most important issues for women in history, how can this debauchery be good for the very women these liberals are intending to help?

    We could talk about how, because of the Affordable Care Act now, and the rising insurance costs to employers, the most qualified candidate for a job may never get the job because the most attractive candidate may be the one already covered by their parent’s or spouse’s health insurance policy, saving the employer the cost of the premium altogether. Ridiculous.

    And we could talk about how fulltime employment, under the Affordable Care Act, is now defined as working 30 hours per work. At 30 working hours per week, you can see that we’re fast becoming a nation of under-achievers.

    We could also talk about how, in 1999, liberals prodded the Fannie Mae Corporation to ease the credit requirements, and encouraged them to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit was generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. And it didn’t take long for the housing market to collapse just a few short years later, of course.

    Here’s the bottom line: As a nation, we must re-learn that success is within our control, and that we can affect the outcome, but can’t keep doing what we’ve doing, or we’ll simply keep getting what we’ve been getting. Escaping “learned helplessness” is understanding that it is not the blowing of the wind that determines our destination; it’s the setting of the sail.

     

    And that starts by electing folks that “get” that idea and who see the promise, and are likewise willing to pay the price.

  • Choose Character: The Mayor’s ‘Race’ That Doesn’t Matter

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    When you dial 911, you only want to know that an ambulance is coming. Or that a police officer or firefighter is responding to your emergency. It doesn’t matter if they are black or white because it’s not about the color of one’s skin, it’s about who can get the job done.

    Unfortunately, that’s not the focus for Shreveport voters, who are dialing 911 for new leadership, as they go to the polls this fall to elect a new mayor. And make no mistake, this is an emergency.

    Millions of dollars in infrastructure spending is needed, from street repairs to sewer and water improvements, to dealing with rising homicides, and now, last month, it was reported that Shreveport was one of the fastest shrinking economies in America.

    But instead of Shreveport voters evaluating mayoral candidates on the content of their character, and their executive experience to lead city government and get things done, voters instead are fixated on the color of a candidate’s skin. Political observers make it seem a foregone conclusion that only a black candidate for mayor is viable, based on the population demographics.

    But yet they hypocritically wonder aloud about how this is the weakest slate of mayoral candidates in our city’s history. It almost becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for these pundits.

    Is it any wonder that men and women of character, regardless of their skin color, might be reluctant to enter the mayor’s race? An arena where the color of one’s skin is seemingly championed over character? Where demographics trump leadership, and politics casts a looming shadow over anyone who might think differently?

    The qualifications for mayor must be more than merely the ability, or tenacity, to mobilize “their” voters.

    Many feel that this was the reason that Shreveport elected its first black mayor in 2006, and reelected him again in 2010.

    Electing our mayor, though, must be about the content of their character, first and last. Martin Luther King, Jr. dreamed of a day where his children will “one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

    To focus elsewhere is an abandonment of King’s dream, and an indication that we have unwittingly aligned ourselves with those who choose color over character and charm over competence.

    Remember, our community’s success stops where our character stops.

    We can never rise above the limitations of our character, and that’s why the mayor’s skin color is meaningless, if we are focused on which of the candidates is most competent. Which ones will show up every day, and keep improving? Which ones will follow through with excellence, and accomplish more than expected? Which ones will inspire others and create a culture of competence in our city government?

    This obsession over skin color in our mayor’s race is yet another blow to the wedge that has often divided Shreveport.

    However, this occurs all over the country, as well. In Louisiana, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin shamelessly patronized black voters during his 2006 reelection campaign when he said, “This city will be chocolate at the end of the day. This city will be a majority African- American city. It’s the way God wants it to be.”

    I’m not sure about God wanting it that way, but with rhetoric like that, Nagin gained 80 percent of the black vote and was handily reelected.

    Even so, black voters across the country, who have often voted reflexively for candidates based their skin color, have also replaced them, one by one. Consider major cities like Chicago, New York, Philadelphia and Los Angeles where this has occurred.

    Consider the bankrupt city of Detroit, as well, where race has defined the city for generations. Detroit is now 80 percent black, and just last year, they elected a new mayor, apparently qualified, and who also happened to be white.

    Perhaps the bottom line is that if we can’t move past color, we really won’t ever attract the best and brightest candidates, and therefore won’t ever engage in the type of discussion that moves a community forward. After all, if we can’t see the promise, we often simply won’t pay the price.

    But inaction now, or ignoring the important issues in this upcoming mayoral election is not a viable alternative.

    If you want to keep getting what you’ve been getting, then keep doing what you’ve been doing. If you are like me, that’s just not good enough. We can, in fact, become the next great city of the south, but it’s time that the mayor’s race has nothing to do with race itself.

     

    After all, in the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., “the time is always right to do what’s right.”

  • Just Stop Digging: A Japanese History Lesson

    Just Stop Digging: A Japanese History Lesson

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    In the 1980s, the Japanese changed American culture in many different and significant ways. Now, they look poised to do it all over again, but this time, by teaching us a history lesson.

    In the late 1980s, Japan was the world’s second largest economy. Japanese automakers entered the U.S. market with small economy cars and pickup trucks that Detroit simply wasn’t interested in making (at the time, at least). Japanese companies, such as Sony and Toshiba, developed the transistor radio and the Walkman. The Japanese were so resourceful that they even took products developed by U.S. companies, such as VCRs, camcorders, and microwave ovens, and made them affordable to the masses.

    But oh how the mighty can fall. And Japan certainly did. Over the past 20 years, Japan’s annual rate of economic growth has averaged a mere 1 percent and last year their population reached it lowest number since the 1950s. And their population is getting older, as well. There are 30 million Japanese who are 65 or older (which is 25 percent of their population).

    Their birth rate is still below their death rate, and that just signals more trouble ahead, as the Japanese face rising welfare and medical care cost  for an aging population, while coping with a rapidly dropping workforce due to fewer births.

    Around 1990, though, when the Japanese economy begin its spiraling descent and unemployment rose, Japanese young people welcomed the chance to “find themselves,” or the liberty “to not be job-locked, but to follow their passion,” as Nancy Pelosi, and other Democrats would say. But now, 20 years later, being “job-locked” doesn’t sound so bad, after all.

    Why? Well, almost one-third of those Japanese young people, now in their late 30s and early 40s, do not hold regular jobs, and some never have. Only half of working 15-to-24-year-olds in Japan have regular jobs.

    If all of this sounds similar to the United States, you’d be right on the money. The unemployment rate for 18-29-year-olds in our country, including those who have given up looking for work, is almost 16 percent. Among African-Americans in this same age bracket, the unemployment rate is almost a whopping 25 percent.

    It’s so bad that even the Obama administration admitted last month that there are three unemployed people for every job opening in our country today.

    And our country’s economic growth rate is expected to remain stagnant again this year, and our population continues to shrink (just like Japan’s). In fact, population growth is so low right now in the U.S. that you have to go back to the Great Depression in the 1930s to find a lower growth rate.

    So when Democrats, like Nancy Pelosi, start making ridiculous claims, such as how Obamacare will “shift how people make a living and reach their aspirations,” it’s time to tell this Japanese history lesson, and have a come-to-Jesus meeting with Democrats.

    They may be interested in learning that 20 years later, the once young and unemployed Japanese, who were seeking their “aspirations” as 20-something year olds, have remained unemployed as 40-something year olds, as well.

    And although these folks never got “job-locked” from pursuing their passion, they also never learned new skills that would earn them enough to boost their country’s economic growth beyond a paltry 1 percent.

    So when the Congressional Budget Office said Obamacare will drain another 2.5 million jobs from the economy by 2021, that means those will lose a paycheck, and the ability to support their families.

    No, we need an economy that encourages job creation and personal responsibility, not “finding yourself” when you have bills to pay. Without more jobs, we’ll end up just like Japan. There’s nothing wrong with hard work, even when it’s not your “passion.” Or being “job locked,” or whatever that really means to the growing number of Democrats using that term. You see, and what they don’t get, it’s not so much what you get from working hard, but it’s what you become by working hard.

    As author Seth Godin explains, “Hard work is about risk. It begins when you deal with the things that you’d rather not deal with: fear of failure, fear of standing out, fear of rejection. Hard work is about training yourself to leap over this barrier, tunnel under that barrier, drive through the other barrier. And, after you’ve done that, to do it again the next day.”

    So, the Democrats can denigrate hard work by making unemployment seem liberating and desirable, despite the Japanese experiences over the past 20 years. The political spinning hardly distracts from rising unemployment numbers, stagnant growth, or the loss of a paycheck that supports a family.

    This is how Japan is poised to change American culture again, if we will only heed the lessons they have learned over the past 20 years.

    And even if you are not a Republican, or a Democrat, or any political party affiliation at all, that’s OK. The lessons of history can work for you, too. But whatever you call yourself, I just don’t want to call you unemployed. Our country’s future literally depends on it.

  • Our Changes: A New Strategy for The White House

    Our Changes: A New Strategy for The White House

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    It may have been the least watched State of the Union address since President Clinton’s, back in 2000, but for those listening to President Obama last month, it may have been the most important State of the Union address of his presidency, especially for the almost 66 percent of Americans who feel that our country is heading down the wrong path.

    Here’s what I mean: The 2012 Presidential election was won using a strategy of distraction, diversion and division, and there may not be a more convenient and illustrative representation of the Democrat Party’s intentions to repeat this strategy for the 2014 elections, than listening to last month’s State of the Union address.

    And while we all know the outcome of their winning strategy for the White House in 2012, we likewise can predict ours, unless we make changes – and make them now. And here’s how we can start:

    First, conservatives must not allow themselves to be distracted from focusing on the core values upon which this country was founded. This will not be easy because we’re all naturally inclined to react with a laundry list of counterpoints, trying to convince less enlightened and liberal friends and family that they are simply off their rockers, when it comes to politics.

    Democrats already understand the futility in doing this. They’ve learned the Pareto principle and know that 80 percent of their success comes from communicating with 20 percent of their constituency. They don’t waste their time and resources on attempting to convince conservatives that their liberal leaning policies are the bees knees.

    Resisting the liberals’ attempts to distract Americans, and divert our attention from what’s most important, however, is not an easy task.

    It takes willpower to maintain self-control when the President knows that 5 million Americans have had their health insurance policies cancelled as a result of his own administration’s policies, and yet he still takes credit, in stump speech after stump speech, for “fixing” the very health care system that he has made worse, not better.

    It takes willpower to calmly listen to his administration’s concern for growing the middle class, when the rich-poor gap, during his administration, has expanded to a disparity not seen since the Great Depression, especially when you consider that Democrats have controlled the Senate since his inauguration.

    It takes willpower to remain focused on what’s really happening to our nation, when he speaks of Al-Quaida being “on the run,” even as his administration’s National Intelligence director said last month that the threat is not “any less” from the terror network than it was a decade ago.

    We could go on and on, from immigration to unemployment, but it all takes willpower to remain focused on what’s most important for our country, and not be distracted by the politics of those more concerned with themselves. When our willpower is depleted, so is our focus, and the politics of distraction rule the day. A good example is how lots of conservative-minded Americans felt following the 2012 Presidential election – they were just plain worn out.

    Democrats remember this, and from listening to last month’s State of the Union address, they are calling up the same play for the 2014 elections.

    But even if conservatives are focused (and rested), our message must be clear. Nearly two-thirds of Republicans feel that the Party must do a better job of communicating their “why,” or their passion, or their values.

    Maybe conservatives, as former Congressman Arthur Davis put it, are “better at talking to each other,” than talking to people who are still not yet sure what they believe in. And maybe that’s because conservatives are not winning any hearts and minds when they are so frantically “counter-punching” every political distraction and diversion thrown by the Democrats, whether during a State of the Union or on the stump, or through the multitude of writers and reporters who seemingly amplify the confusion.

     

    As Republicans in this election year, we need to do just one thing, better than anyone else, to be successful in 2014: Simply talk relentlessly about the American values upon which our nation was founded, and refrain from the kindergarten-like, “I know you are, but what am I” dialogue with Democrats. And we can apply the Pareto principle, as well, focusing our energies in the areas where we can make the most difference. We must remain rested and ready, This is easier said than done, especially when you cross that line and start shouting at the television, awakening the neighbors, and wondering why other folks don’t seem to get it. Simply put, we have to stop reacting, and start acting on what’s most important to us. After all, if every Democrat distraction is important, then how can anything be important at all?

  • Truth Be Told: ‘Honesty is Hardly Ever Heard’

    Truth Be Told: ‘Honesty is Hardly Ever Heard’

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Americans average about 11 lies per week. There are major ones, and minor ones, of course. Maybe it’s an excuse on why you were late, or didn’t complete a task. Maybe it’s when a friend asks your opinion on a matter, and you wanted to be polite, more than you wanted to tell the truth.

    Well, it turns out this may be impacting your health. Linda Stroh, a professor emeritus of organizational behavior at Loyola University in Chicago, said, “When you find that you don’t lie, you have less stress, and being very conflicted adds an inordinate amount of stress to your life.”

    In fact, a recent study indicated that as individuals tell more lies, their physical and mental health declines. Conversely, as the number of lies decrease, their health improves.

    Might this also be true for our nation’s health, as well? After all, are we lying to one another, instead of having an honest discussion about our national debt, the crippling costs of entitlement programs and the failures of our immigration system? We need to speak truthfully about why our schools are failing and why our healthcare costs are spiraling out of control, and about the deterioration of the family and the whitewashing of religion from our national consciousness? Don’t we just need to put it out on the table, and talk openly? We do.

    But instead, we find ourselves almost always conflicted, as we are reading, watching and listening ad naseum to elected officials and news reporting that often are anything but truthful.

    What honest person believes Hillary Clinton’s or President Obama’s explanation about Benghazi? Who really believes the administration’s claim that it’s a positive sign that the unemployment rate went down .03 percent last month, when there are 92 million people who have dropped out of the labor force altogether, and are not looking for work at all?

    Who doesn’t feel they were bamboozled for months and months and months when Obama promised, “If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.” And now four million Americans (so far) have now lost their healthcare plan, and it seems that the administration knew this would happen all along. Remember Nancy Pelosi’s pitch, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” Goodness.

    But this administration started out straight enough, right? The President promised in 2009, for example, that “My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in government.”

    Who, in their right mind, believes this has happened? Maybe it’s because, as some say, we can’t handle the truth. After all, our nation is on the verge of bankruptcy, and yet still so many folks seem oblivious and continue supporting policies and candidates that increase government spending, and they do this, year and after year.

    But some may say telling the truth is not all that it is cracked up to be, either. Remember Walter Mondale’s 1984 pledge to raise taxes? He said, “Let’s tell the truth … Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won’t tell you. I just did.” He lost in a landslide, of course, but you could also name many other reasons for that outcome, as well.

    The bottom line is that honesty still means something in this world, and it’s not just an “American” thing, it’s a “human being” thing. And we remember it, or the lack of it, long after the details of its subject matter are long forgotten. Lyndon Johnson lied about Vietnam. Richard Nixon lied about Watergate. Bill Clinton lied about Monica Lewinsky.

    Thinking back, it may be no coincidence that Billy Joel’s song, “Honesty” was nominated for “Song of the Year” at the Grammy Awards in 1980, right in the middle of that year’s presidential campaign. As the song goes, “Honesty is hardly ever heard. And mostly what I need from you. But if you look for truthfulness, you might just as well be blind.” Winston Churchill, although likely not a big Billy Joel fan, said it another way: “The truth is heavy, therefore few care to carry it.”

    No, in the end, it’s not that the American people cannot handle the truth; it’s that they shouldn’t be expected to manage their lives in the absence of it.

  • Assertive Force: Did ‘Duck Dynasty’ Awaken the Silent Majority?

    Assertive Force: Did ‘Duck Dynasty’ Awaken the Silent Majority?

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    With 14 million viewers per episode, and endorsements and merchandise bringing in $400 million per year, “Duck Dynasty” is flying high.

    “Duck Dynasty” is a television series on A&E that portrays the lives of the unflappable Robertson family in West Monroe, who operate a family duck call business. In less than two years, it has more than quadrupled the number of viewers per episode.

    So, why are so many folks paying attention? Maybe it’s because the family is affectionate toward one another. Or that they are open about their Christian faith, and nearly every episode ends with the family praying around the dinner table. Maybe it’s because they’ve had to endure bad times, including when the patriarch of the family, Phil Robertson, was running a dilapidated bar, and abandoned completely his young family for a short time, before becoming baptized, seeing the errors of his ways, and starting anew. Maybe it’s because they are pro-business, pro-life and are committed to sexual abstinence before marriage.

    Or maybe it’s because they appear much less concerned with expressing political correctness, than with sharing their deeply held beliefs. This was certainly true last month, when Phil, in an interview with GQ magazine, paraphrased Corinthians by saying virtually everyone – from the adulterers, to the homosexual offenders, to the greedy, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers – won’t inherit the kingdom of God. He later went on to say, “We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”

    But more important than A&E initially suspending Phil from filming indefinitely because of these comments, and then reinstating him, and more important than Cracker Barrel apologizing to their customers, after initially pulling “Duck Dynasty” products off of their shelves, and more important than the reality show ratings, is what this all says about the direction of our nation, and the yearning to return to traditional values by what some have called the “silent majority.”

    The “silent majority” are the folks that have not necessarily taken an active part in politics, and are not necessarily conservative, but they clearly resent anyone disrespecting traditional American values, such as freedom of speech, Christianity, marriage, the right to bear arms, etc.

    And although the influence of this “silent majority” has appeared throughout history, it perhaps was none more prominent, in recent times, than in the 1970s. In fact, in January, 1970, Time magazine named “Middle America” as a replacement for their annual “Man of the Year” award, recognizing the “silent majority” as a powerfully assertive force in U.S. society, especially during the dissent and confrontation of that era.

    These are the same folks who later went on later that decade to elect Ronald Reagan in 1980, and were also known, as “Reagan Democrats.” In fact, Reagan’s election was predicted on-air by another television icon at the time, who likewise seemed far less concerned with political correctness than sharing his deeply held beliefs — Archie Bunker.

    Archie was a blue-collar, World War II veteran, and the product of his working class neighborhood in Queens. Although fictional, the “All in The Family” television series ranked number-one in the ratings from 1971 to 1976.

    His opinions on race, sex, marriage, and religion were so politically incorrect that the initial episodes included prominent warnings about its content being offensive. Despite Archie’s opinions, “All in The Family” provided a platform for American dialogue, especially with the “silent majority,” and in doing so, gave way to greater understanding on many controversial issues of the times.

    So, while Bunker and Robertson are not the same characters, whether fictional or otherwise, they do have one thing in common: Their lack of political correctness resonates with the American people, and the “silent majority.”

    Actually, in the case of Archie, this was not intended at all by Norman Lear, the producer of “All in The Family.” He expected the public to dislike Archie, and was shocked when he became such a beloved figure. And maybe A&E is shocked, as well; maybe they expected that Americans would laugh at the amusing behavior of the “rednecks.” But we haven’t.

    And if political incorrectness is on the rise within the “silent majority” of Americans, perhaps this all means that the cultural pendulum is finally swinging the other direction.

    In the words of Phil Robertson, “Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.”

    And especially in this coming election year, hopefully our candidates can remember the same – the successful ones will.

  • Fake War: Christmas Spirit Comes From Within

    Fake War: Christmas Spirit Comes From Within

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    “I am so sick of myopic, self-centered, ‘persecuted’ Christians who complain about a fake war on Christmas by the people in this country who don’t happen to share their particular views,” a letter to the editor of the Dallas Morning News started out.

    The letter continued, “So please, Christians (‘persecuted’ Christians, not the kind who actually do unto others as you would have others treat you), open your eyes and see that the U.S. is not a Christian nation but a giant melting pot of many different cultures and beliefs. The world does not revolve around you.”

    Maybe this describes your opinion of the matter, as well. Maybe you feel Jon Stewart from “The Daily Show” said it best when he said, “You’ve confused a war on Christianity with not always getting everything you want.”

    Or, on the other hand, maybe you would have shouted “Amen!” to Ronald Reagan when he said, “Christmas can be celebrated in the school room with pine trees, tinsel and reindeers, but there must be no mention of the man whose birthday is being celebrated. One wonders how a teacher would answer if a student asked why it was called Christmas.”

    But whichever pew you sit in, the religious celebration of Christmas faces trivialization every year, and this is what many characterize as the “war on Christmas.” It draws attention (and controversy) whenever folks demand that a Christmas tree be referred to as a “holiday tree,” or when seemingly benign Christmas carols cannot be sung in our schools, or whenever Christmas decorations are not permitted to be displayed in our public squares, for fear of offending others.

    Just a few years ago, for example, even the White House was not planning to display the Nativity scene, which has been a longtime East Room tradition. Instead, according to the White House’s former social secretary Desiree Rogers, the “Obamas were planning a nonreligious Christmas.”

    But good grief. Does hearing, “Peace on earth, good will toward men” really sound oppressive? Does “Joy to the world” bring despair to those who hear it? Is there such a scarcity of darkness in the world that a few twinkling lights might not brighten one’s day, or where the innocence of Santa Claus might not teach us all that it is in giving, that we receive?

    Poll after poll has shown that the fear of offending others with “Merry Christmas” is misplaced. According to the polling firm Zogby, 95 percent of Americans are NOT offended when they hear “Merry Christmas.” In fact, even 62 percent of non-Christians (including Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists) all celebrate Christmas, in some form or fashion, plus more than half of self-identified atheists and almost 90 percent of agnostics.

    Interestingly, this misplaced fear of offending others, through religion, was the reason that the CBS network executives almost canceled “A Charlie Brown Christmas,” back in December, 1965. You see, the executives did not want Linus reciting the story of the birth of Christ from the Gospel of Luke. It was thought that viewers would not want to be preached upon by an animated cartoon, especially from Biblical passages.

    Yet 15 million viewers, or one-half of the television viewing audience, tuned in to watch “A Charlie Brown Christmas” when it first aired in 1965 and it has become the longest-running cartoon special in history, having aired now for 48 Christmases, and receiving an Emmy and a Peabody award along the way. Those CBS executives just got it wrong when it came to religion.

    So, what’s the commotion about the “war” on Christmas? It’s really about a larger “war” on Christianity, and not just here at home, but around the world where Christians are persecuted, and even killed. It is estimated that 80 percent of all acts of religious discrimination in the world today are directed against Christians. Even Pope Francis recently pointed out, “So many Christians in the world are suffering,” and “giving their lives” for their Christian faith.

    When your waitress at Denny’s says, “Happy Holidays,” or your local Radio Shack doesn’t even acknowledge the reason for the season, that’s not the same as taking machine gun fire to your soul, but some Christians are arguably concerned that it’s an awful, slippery slope.

    You see, history teaches us that imperceptible changes can have a lasting, irreparable effect on society. Dictators understand the effectiveness of eroding freedoms by imperceptible reductions. As Adolph Hitler wrote in his book, “Mein Kampf,” “the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.”

    And it is this feared, imperceptible erosion to the freedom of religion, and persecution for one’s beliefs, that concern folks so much that they characterize the trivialization of Christmas as a “war.” Those that mock their angst, or making fun of their concerns, simply aren’t digging down deep enough.

    Yes, the true Christmas spirit still comes from within, and it is not just a time of year, but a state of mind. I just pray now that Charles Schulz is still right when he said, “There will always be an audience for innocence in this country.” Well, I hope so. Our nation’s future literally depends on it.

  • Unspoken Reason: Effects of ‘Deindividuation’ in our Nation

    Unspoken Reason: Effects of ‘Deindividuation’ in our Nation

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    You know how you’ve felt whenever another driver has cut you off in traffic, or has made hand gestures (which were completely unnecessary), as they sped away from you anonymously, disapprovingly honking and shaking their head the entire time about your driving?

    Maybe you even expressed yourself back to that individual by vigorously honking back at them, and letting the other driver know you completely disapprove of their aggressive behavior.

    But a quick question: If either of you were introduced to one another and shared a Coke, or a cup of coffee, at Strawn’s, you’d hardly express yourself as aggressively as you would if you were seated anonymously behind the windshield of your vehicle in heavy traffic. But why is that? It’s because when we blend into a crowd, instead of meeting with someone face-to-face, we have a decreased sense of personal accountability.

    Psychologists call it “deindividuation,” and it is a psychological theory developed to explain how people, when they are doing something anonymously, become more capable of acts that rational individuals would not normally do. It’s the unspoken reason that criminals will often disguise themselves with masks, and why it’s so easy for folks to engage in harsh criticism of others online. Anonymity makes it easier to disconnect you, from you.

    But this is not just a psychological theory that is merely academic. With the roll-out of Obamacare this month, the practice of this theory is actually on full display in our nation’s capitol.

    You see, every time that President Obama goes on television, gives an interview, and steps behind his teleprompter, and then blames Obamacare failures on the Republicans, or the defective website, he disconnects himself from the failures of very legislation that bears his name, and he blends into the “crowd.” He points to everyone else, and anyone who will listen, and says, “It’s not my fault, it’s theirs.”

    And while 57 percent of Americans oppose Obamacare and want it scrapped, and less than half of all Americans even view President Obama as honest or trustworthy, or as a strong leader, and even though experts predict 129 million Americans will lose their current health insurance, the President’s response has been, as the psychological theory predicts, to disguise himself as a bystander, and thereby avoid the responsibility for dismantling private healthcare in our country.

    The more he blames, the more he blends, and the more anonymous (not synonymous) he becomes with the healthcare debacle facing every American, instead of being held accountable for what he has done.

    As he told the Wall Street Journal, “(o)ne of the problems we’ve had is one side of Capitol Hill is invested in failure.” In the Rose Garden, he complained about the “reckless demands by some in the Republican Party to deny affordable health insurance to millions of hardworking Americans.” He has blamed the insurers for the millions of canceled policies, then blamed software developers for the website failure, and now blames the critics of Obamacare for creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    I call it all baloney. While blaming others may make him feel more confident about the dismal implementation of Obamacare or even make him feel superior to others, it’s simply not helpful.

    The bungled roll-out of Obamacare, and the failed promise that if you liked your insurance, you could keep your insurance, is further evidence that the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

    And despite the disguises, or masks worn by the politicians in Washington these days, the effects of deindividuation in our nation can be overcome with a simple, plain oldfashioned choice; a choice to champion personal accountability wherever, and whenever, we see it.

    So the next time someone honks at you, or otherwise expresses themselves through sign language to you in traffic, look at it as another opportunity to illustrate why Washington’s lack of accountability simply doesn’t work for us. Sure, opportunity usually knocks, but in this case, it honks too.

  • Inner-City Connector

    Inner-City Connector

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    It is widely accepted that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. In fact, it was 5th-century B.C. Greek mathematician Pythagoras, who discovered the longest side of a right triangle is actually the shortest path between the two points on either end.

    But Pythagoras missed a couple of key exceptions, however. First, his theorem only works on flat surfaces. And secondly, he never calculated the distance between the folks who want to establish an inner-city connector between I-20 and I-220, and those folks who don’t.

    And despite the proposed distance between those two points being virtually a straight line, these groups could not be further apart. Here’s what I mean:
    Earlier this year, the Louisiana DOTD formally broke ground on a section of I-49 that will connect Martin Luther King Drive and La. Highway 1 by 2016. As this section of I-49 inches closer to Shreveport, so does the debate over constructing an estimated $300 million inner-city connector to this last section of I-49, which would be built through the Allendale neighborhood.

    Formally, the prospect of this inner-city connector is only in the planning and environmental stage, where an Environmental Impact Statement will be presented to the Federal Highway Administration and DOTD for approval, before proceeding further.

    But for others, like the Shreveport City Council, they’ve already made up their minds. In June, they unanimously supported the construction of a new 120-unit affordable housing complex that is being built on land owned by the Shreveport Housing Authority. And this was in spite of the Metropolitan Planning Commission’s denial of the project only days earlier.

    State Representative Roy Burrell argues that building this inner-city connector is more important than this housing complex because the connector will have a projected economic impact of $400 million in the Allendale area alone. He claims that those opposing the inner-city connector, and supporting the construction of the housing complex instead, have their own, selfish economic interests in mind, and not the “plight of the poor black folks in Allendale.”

    On the other side of the road, those opposing the inner-city connector point out that downtown was most prosperous when neighborhoods like Allendale, and Ledbetter Heights, were prosperous. Architect Kim Mitchell points out that since 1980, the population in these neighborhoods has decreased by 80%, and that revitalizing these neighborhoods, and making it attractive for entrepreneurs, doesn’t include running a six-lane interstate highway through them.

    He points out that the even President Eisenhower, who signed into law the construction of the interstate highway system in 1956, admitted that building these highways through congested parts of cities was against his original concept and wishes. And now, it seems, his original concept and wishes may be part of a growing trend throughout the nation.

    For example, there’s a proposal in downtown Dallas to tear down I-345 because some say it divides the Deep Ellum neighborhood and downtown Dallas, effectively choking the life out of both. And even down in New Orleans, Mayor Landrieu says that he is willing to consider tearing down the elevated stretch of Interstate 10 through downtown New Orleans, pointing out that it “gave people more impetus to bypass the city than to stay in it.” Tearing it down, he explained, could attract new residents and businesses.
    And that’s what Senator Barrow Peacock has in mind too, on this matter, but for a different reason. He believes that by building the inner-city I-49 connector it will attract new residents and businesses to both Allendale, and downtown alike. He points to the North Central Expressway in Dallas, complete with miles of service roads on both sides, as an example of how to build more than a highway, but an economic engine. “Look at the development along North Central in Dallas,” Senator Peacock explains, “there are neighborhoods and businesses that are thriving, and which have continued to grow, decades after it was built.”

    But what’s the alternative to building the inner-city connector? Some folks propose simply looping I-49 traffic around I-220 and the existing 3132, and for considerably less than the estimated $300 million construction cost of the 3.9 mile proposed connector. Of course, this will increase traffic on North Market for travelers southbound on I-49, whose destination includes downtown Shreveport.

    Some say that this would reinvigorate a once thriving, vital part of our city. Others say the inconvenience of it all will only grow, and they point out that I-220 and 3132 are only 4-lane highways, and should be 6-lanes, if such looping is to be seriously considered, not to mention that the loop will require travelers to drive an additional 12 miles further than they would if the inner-city connector was built.

    Well, that’s enough for now. This is a matter of great importance, for the future development of our community, and the generations of folks yet to come. It’s difficult to underestimate the role that the interstate highway system has played in the American economy and our culture. The interstate connected us, as a nation, long before Facebook, and as such, it’s hard to imagine progress without it.

    In the coming months, get informed, and be heard. Surely there’s a way for us to get Pythagoras and Robert Frost together, somehow, so that we can travel along the shortest distance between two points while, at the same time, perhaps taking the road less traveled. I hear it will make all the difference.