May 14
1 Comment
Apr 11
It Pays To Be Buddy With Caldwell
Buddy Caldwell did the Louisiana Democratic Party a huge favor when he defected to the GOP.
We may elect our Attorneys General, but more than any other statewide office, the Attorney General, once elected, should attempt, as much as humanly possible, to steer clear of politicking. At the very least, our Attorney General should be focused on the job he was elected to do: Serving, zealously, on behalf of the best interests of the people of Louisiana. Caldwell may be a career prosecutor with a stellar track record of sending people to jail. I, for one, don’t believe this is necessarily an “accomplishment” in and of itself, and there’s something slightly disconcerting about a lawyer who touts his near-perfect conviction rate as a sign of his own personal success. As most of us know, the American judicial system is not perfect, so whenever a prosecutor claims to be perfect, or near-perfect, the question, inevitably, should be, “Is this merely a reflection of selective prosecution?” And for any prosecutor, that is assuredly a legitimate question. For a man who seeks to be the Attorney General for an entire State, that question is critical, because selective prosecution, invariably, requires a willingness to overlook the equal application of the law. Any prosecutor can use his or her discretion to ensure, as much as possible, that their resume remains unblemished. But let’s all be honest: Sometimes, it means bargaining with the wealthy and well-connected and playing hardball with everyone else, particularly with people who cannot afford a battle-tested attorney.
Notably, when Caldwell was a District Attorney, the State Legislative Auditor found:
During the period January 2000 through October 2004, Ms. Carolyn Caldwell, Madison Parish Clerk of Court (Clerk), used $30,155 of public funds for expenditures that do not appear to have a valid business purpose. Also, Ms. Caldwell awarded her sister contracts, rental agreements, and other business totaling $10,388; improperly used $862 of public funds; and spent $24,249 for which the business purpose, necessity, and reasonableness are not documented and/or unclear.
Mr. Caldwell never prosecuted his family members for these violations. And then there’s this bizarre story (which, admittedly, is directly from Mr. Caldwell’s Wikipedia entry; no use in rewriting it):
Former Legislative Auditor Dan Kyle of Baton Rouge, an unsuccessful Republican candidate for insurance commissioner in 2003, was a leading critic of Caldwell’s attorney general candidacy. Kyle reported that in 1997 Caldwell “spent $1,529 in D.A. office funds to pay for personal items, including clothing and golfing expenses.” The expenses included air fare to Montana and golf fees in Alabama.
According to The Advocate, Kyle claimed that Caldwell tried “to quash release of parts of the audit… and used foul language and threats in an unsuccessful attempt to block the audit.” Then, Kyle accused Caldwell of having blamed his own secretary for the questionable spending: “Caldwell also said the spending problem in the 1997 audit was a mistake by his secretary, adding that he personally brought it to the auditor’s attention.” In Committee Room 3,during a Legislation probe, Mr. Caldwell was testified against by the auditor who stated that Mr. Caldwell said, “Some very racist remarks, because the police jury we were issuing the audit on were all minorities, he told me I just needed a white man to issue an audit on. I said’no’ the findings are the same. You’ve done the same thing these people have done and justice is justice. And, I have to issue both reports. And, if you’ll look at them, they both have the same data on them.” The auditor stated that he was later told Mr. Caldwell “is a loose cannon… out to get you. He is dangerous. You need protection.”
Three years later, Caldwell accused Kyle’s investigators of “an array of questionable activities ranging from improperly bugging conversations to having sex with witnesses in audit investigations” in testimony before the Legislative Audit Advisory Council. Caldwell “told the council… that state auditors working in north Louisiana had suppressed evidence, secretly tape-recorded interviews with witnesses, and compromised the credibility of witnesses in possible criminal investigations. Caldwell later told reporters he also knew of instances of an auditor in Kyle’s office having sexual relations with people being audited.” Caldwell gave no details, according to Kyle.
Caldwell subpoenaed two of Kyle’s investigators before a grand jury in Tallulah. Kyle later claimed that Caldwell was trying to indict Kyle or the investigators. According to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Caldwell said after the Legislative Audit Advisory Council meeting that he “might reopen a grand jury investigation of Kyle’s office.”
Caldwell also came under fire for his role as a self-appointed special prosecutor in a case against St. Tammany Parish Judge Patricia Hedges. He filed charges of extortion, public bribery, and malfeasance against the judge, only to drop all claims without explanation on the premise that he could not have won a conviction without a jury trial.
Welcome to the Grand Old Party, Mr. Caldwell.
But there’s one more thing:
When Buddy Caldwell was first elected, he hired former Rapides Parish Police Juror Joe Fuller as his intergovernmental liaison. The same Joe Fuller who ran for Mayor of Alexandria in 2006 and was pummeled at the polls. The same Joe Fuller who founded and spearheaded the political action committee Revitalizing Our Community, which has already (allegedly, because these things are kept off-the-record) been fined by the Ethics Administration and which, most recently, paid elected officials hundreds of dollars a piece to serve as “campaign workers” during the 2011 Rapides Parish Sheriff’s Race. Attorney General Buddy Caldwell is paying Joe Fuller, with taxpayer dollars, to serve in some sort of vaguely-defined political job.
Again, remember: Buddy Caldwell is not the Governor; he’s not the head of Louisiana Economic Development; he’s not a legislator. Buddy Caldwell is the Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, and Joe Fuller is not and has never been an attorney. More than anything, Joe Fuller fashions himself as some sort of old-school political godfather, a representative of a constituency that hasn’t elected him to anything in years, a man who is adept at raising tens of thousands of dollars from other old-school politicians to support his own PAC and even more skilled at milking these funds for maximum advantage, doling them out to dozens of people, while simultaneously living off of Buddy Caldwell’s taxpayer-funded largesse.
And what exactly is Joe Fuller doing for Buddy Caldwell? Well, thanks to The Town Talk‘s Billy Gunn, now we at least have some idea:
Longtime Alexandria political allies Herbert Dixon and Joe Fuller have teamed up to write a legislative tax district bill that could financially benefit one local family.
The bill was filed by Dixon, a state representative whose district covers parts of Alexandria and Pineville, and is being promoted by Fuller, a former Rapides Parish police juror who now works for the Louisiana attorney general.
“Part of my job working with the AG’s office is to work with representatives,” said Fuller, who added he helped write House Bill 919. “When they put bills in and they need assistance, I work with them all over the state.”
Fuller’s job title at the AG’s office is “intergovernmental relations,” according to AG spokeswoman Amanda Larkins.
Ms. Larkins, you should have said, “Mr. Fuller was not acting in his capacity as an employee of the Louisiana Attorney General when he assisted Representative Dixon. The Attorney General’s Office does not participate in crafting real estate development legislation. Our role is clearly defined.” Instead, you gave credibility to Mr. Fuller’s and Representative Dixon’s patently absurd suggestion that they were merely engaging in constituent relations work. Since when, exactly, did the Louisiana Attorney General decide it was wise to spend taxpayer money crafting legislation to provide a tax break for one person to develop a single piece of property? How, on earth, is this a function of Buddy Caldwell’s office? Crafting legislation that is opposed by the Mayors of Pineville and Alexandria and practically everyone else in Central Louisiana with a sense of smell?
I don’t necessarily blame the property owner, Jerry Slocum, though I do think that this deal reeks to high heaven and that he should have, at the very least, been willing, ready, and able to show an actionable plan for a catalytic development on his property that could only occur with a Tax Increment Finance district; otherwise, Mr. Slocum, along with Mr. Dixon and Mr. Fuller, is just asking for the State of Louisiana to grant him a tax break. Here’s what all three men must answer: What makes Mr. Slocum’s land so special? What deal is on the table? Why should we give you our money when we’re not giving the same advantage to any other person in all of Central Louisiana? And why, on earth, are Joe Fuller and the Louisiana Attorney General involved?
Buddy Caldwell may always have naysayers and critics, but if he wants to prove that he’s not someone who pads his resume with selective prosecution, if he wants to prove that he’s above the political fray and not prone to erraticism or favoritism, then he can begin by immediately and publicly firing Joe Fuller. I don’t know how anyone could pretend that Mr. Fuller’s actions were appropriate, because even if this development was the most meritorious project in Louisiana history, the Louisiana Attorney General’s office should not be involved in crafting legislation for a single developer. What happens if this developer defaults? How could the State of Louisiana possibly enforce a clawback provision if the developer can claim that he was acting under the advice of the Attorney General’s office? How can the people of Louisiana be reasonably certain this legislation will protect them when it’s written, by the Attorney General’s office, on behalf of a property owner seeking a tax incentive? This should be blatantly obvious.
Again, Caldwell can do the right thing and fire Joe Fuller. Immediately.
Otherwise, it sure looks like it pays to be buddy with Caldwell.
Apr 1
If Only We Could Have More Negative Things…
Update: Obviously, The Town Talk has felt at least some heat. This is what they ran with in their print edition:
“Cenla’s 15 Minutes: Economic Impact of ‘Cajun Pawn Stars,’ Other Reality TV Shows Hard to Pinpoint,” an unabashedly negative and dismissive headline.
And here’s what they’re currently running with online:
Too little, too late. However terrible, at least the first headline was honest about the real theme of the article.
***
The Town Talk sucks. I know I’ve said as much before; it’s a running theme here, but this really takes the cake. The headline, A-1, above-the-fold story this Sunday is about how there’s no way to prove people are making pilgrimages to Alexandria to see, for themselves, the mecca of Silver Dollar Pawn. Silver Dollar, for those of you unaware, is the subject of the new hit reality show “Cajun Pawn Stars,” which has been a smash success despite the stilted acting and the blatant phoniness.
Hey, don’t get me wrong: I am a fan. It’s reality television; I don’t expect unscripted reality. And besides, it’s funny and interesting, particularly if you’re from Central Louisiana.
And that’s why I am disappointed in The Town Talk. Their reporter, Jodi Belgard, interviews the star of the show, Jimmie DeRamus, the head of the Convention and Visitors Bureau, Sherri Smith, and the President of the Hotel-Motel Association, Tracy Godwin, and then publishes a tortured and almost mean-spirited article about reality TV tourism, as if such a thing has ever existed. I doubt any of the folks she interviewed knew her angle, and with all due respect to Ms. Belgard, I detest this type of journalism. It’s petty; it struggles so hard to assert its own objectivity that it it inadvertently destroys all credibility. It takes a positive and mutates it into a negative. Mr. DeRamus’s show garnered 3.6 million viewers in its debut; that’s incredible. But for the paper, apparently, it’s not good enough. He earnestly seeks to promote the area, and Ms. Belgard contextualizes his statements by way of pointing out that his show hasn’t booked a single hotel room… at the Holiday Inn Express. Seriously. To borrow a favorite expression of the paper, boos to The Town Talk for running with this.
And boos to Tracy Godwin. She should know better. Maybe her hotel hasn’t experienced any increase in business because of film projects, but I know for an absolute, take-it-to-the-bank fact that several other hotels have.
Tracy Godwin is the general manager of Holiday Inn Express on MacArthur Drive and the president of the Central Louisiana Hotel-Motel Association. She’s been in the hotel business in Alexandria for 15 years and said “Cajun Pawn Stars” and similar projects have brought exactly zero guests to Holiday Inn Express.
“The hotels in town that are the newer properties generally stay sold out during the week purely with business people,” she said. “On the weekends they stay sold out with teams for sporting events. We always ask our guests what they’re here for, and we’ve had zero at Holiday Inn Express that have said they’re here for ‘Cajun Pawn Stars.’”
As a matter of fact, television rarely brings visitors to Central Louisiana hotels.
“I don’t know that anything like this has ever brought in business,” Godwin said. “Usually it’s the negative things, like (The Jena Six).”
This lady is the head of the Hotel-Motel Association, and her statement to Ms. Belgard (if this really is her statement) about film projects affecting hotel bookings is an absolute lie. Sheesh. These film crews just aren’t booking at her hotel, because her rates are double what other hotels charge, plain and simple. And c’mon, the Jena Six was not a television show. How disconnected from reality must you be to conflate the Jena Six with “Cajun Pawn Stars”? It’s just insultingly and bafflingly ridiculous.
I have to be honest (if it’s not already obvious): This whole thing– couching a hit TV show as a negative and the almost reckless suggestions made by the leader of the hotel-motel association– is infuriating to me. And I reject it, entirely. I think Central Louisiana is worthy of its title as a National Geographic Wilderness Town; I think Jimmie DeRamus’s show, at the very least, reveals our amazing landscape and at its best makes for entertaining and educational television. You can say I’m being nit-picky, and that’s fine. I’ll stand by my criticism: Ms. Belgard’s report mentioned several positives, but her editors wrapped it all up and packaged it as a negative. (Because as I was recently reminded, The Town Talk thinks it’s important to prove they’re not “cheerleaders,” whatever the heck that actually means).
I don’t think anyone has ever, ever, ever wondered about reality TV tourism, except for Ms. Belgard and her editors; it’s about showcasing our region’s assets.
And, incidentally, until and unless Ms. Godwin clarifies and corrects her statements, I don’t think she should serve as the head of any organization responsible for attracting tourism into our region. If you’re thinking about traveling to Alexandria, I’d recommend the Courtyard by Marriott instead; the manager there has always been a champion of the community.
LC President Joe Aguillard Should Immediately Resign or Be Fired
A few days ago, perhaps with the hope of attracting the attention of the national media that towed along, Louisiana College President Joe Aguillard announced at a campaign event he hosted for the erstwhile Republican Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich that he would “consider shutting down” Louisiana College if Obamacare ever became the law of the land.
I commend the students who bravely spoke out against Aguillard’s remarks, and I earnestly hope that, unlike others who have dared to criticize him, they will not be reprimanded for exercising the very same First Amendment rights that he disingenuously seeks to protect. The students who spoke out against Aguillard are absolutely right, though I’d add a few things.
First, in my opinion, his leadership has been an abysmal failure: The school is now threatened with sanctions for failing to comply with its accreditation standards. According to an internal report that was leaked to the media, it now faces over thirty million dollars worth of deferred maintenance costs. (And after it was leaked, Aguillard’s response was bafflingly stupid, essentially accusing the media of a Satanic plot against him). He’s lied to the public about his courtship of the governments of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. He’s fired professors who point out his failures. And with all due respect, I am not holding my breath for his proposals for a law school and medical school; after all, the man can’t even ensure basic accreditation compliance for the undergraduate school, which should be considered his core responsibility. On top of all of that, aside from the unconfirmed gossip, Joe Aguillard’s salary has increased exponentially throughout the last few years. From SaveOurLC:
2010 (FY 8-1-2010 to 7-31-2011)
Aguillard 202,594; Quarles 115,287; Hargis 99,238; Johnson 94,957; Pack 83,995.2009
Aguillard 190,813; Travers 100,396; Quarles 98,973; Hargis 89,337; Johnson 87,954; Pack 82,3762008
Aguillard 179,159; Quarrels 92,640; Johnson 88,031; Hargis 88,025; Pack 80,970; Travers 46,7892007
Aguillard 164,000; Sumrall 101,750; Quarles 93,008; Spears 92,249; Hargis 90,000; Pack 81,684; Dunn 80,800; Ferry 77,063; Packer 74,280; Campbell 71,2502005
Aguillard 132,338; Sumrall 111,000; Quarles 90,236; Hargis 88,000; Spears 86,228; Howell 71,938; Thames 69,196; Rushing 68,059; Neal 62,3682004
Aguillard 105,575; Townsend 90,557; Hargis 83,028; Thames 66,874; Rushing 62,3602003
Lee 147,030; Hawkins 105,128; Townsend 89,000; Hargis 81,600; Aguillard 69,738
Aguillard has been receiving exponential payraises every single year, despite the fact that Louisiana College has continued to struggle, despite the threat of sanctions, despite those “evil” reports on deferred maintenance. Apparently, the Board at LC awards grandiosity over effectiveness. And now, Joe Aguillard’s latest ploy is to attempt to convince everyone in our community that his “faith,” which allows him and his institution the ability to receive our money, tax-free, somehow prevents women from accessing birth control medication. Every sperm is sacred, even if you can’t prove it, right?
To all the LC defenders, that’s fine. Seriously. But in fairness, there should be one precondition: No more taxpayer dollars. If this is all truly about the government infringing on your ability to practice your own religion, then, for Chistsakes, don’t take the government’s money; otherwise, when you do, you’re engaging in a taxpayer-subsidized establishment of religion, which is in contravention of the First Amendment.
Joe Aguillard needs money from all of us in order to ensure that his school operates; he can’t do it on his own. Let’s make that clear. Indeed, that is the ONLY reason why he’d threaten to shut down Louisiana College over a federal law he personally (and I believe, moronically) opposes. If he could do it on his own, why would he ever need to threaten to close the school?
I call his bluff. I think he’s nothing more than an amateur publicity hound. And I dare him: Close LC over contraception coverage in the Obamacare bill. Do it.
Guess what, Mr. Aguillard? When and if you ever do, people won’t remember your failed attempt at battling for your singular right to deny your female employees medication. Instead, they’ll remember your legacy of failure. They’ll remember the threat of academic sanctions. They’ll remember the deferred maintenance. They’ll remember when you ate a worm on camera, your bizarre antics, the rumors that have surrounded you, the fact that your salary has nearly doubled while the core institution has suffered. They’ll also remember your Board and how they not only failed the institution they swore to protect but also the expectations and hope of an entire region. They won’t remember birth control pills or the morning after pill or your non-scientific claims about the sanctity of a male orgasm (because that’s really what this is all about); they will remember your failures as a leader. So, close the school. Please, close the school. Make good on your threats. Close LC. Shut it down now. Prove your point. Go ahead.
Or, just stop taking money from the rest of us. I hear that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia pledged a bunch of money. Maybe you can ask them instead.
An Unrepentant Saints Fan
Putting aside all of the bloviating hyperbole from sports journalists who seem all too eager to brandish their pitchforks, the hypocritical pronouncements about protecting the safety of players, and the notion that the NFL is somehow “sending a message” that it will no longer tolerate players incentivizing one another to take out their opponents (at least when the incentive is in contravention of salary cap requirements), Roger Goodell’s “smoking gun” against New Orleans Saints coach Sean Payton seems to be that Payton acknowledged receiving an e-mail from Mike Orstein that read, “PS Greg Williams put me down for $5000 on Rogers [sic].”
That’s it.
That’s Goodell’s damning evidence.
Sean Payton acknowledged receiving this e-mail, which apparently was also sent to other members of the Saints organization as well, considering Orstein’s postscript wasn’t directed to Coach Payton but to Greg Williams. Williams, incidentally, has taken full responsibility for and ownership of the so-called bounty program, something he also, allegedly, employed while coaching for the Washington Redskins and the Buffalo Bills. Neither of those teams, by the way, have faced any scrutiny; no one is calling for those teams to place asterisks next to their wins. Before ever investigating whether this practice also occurred in other organizations, Goodell imposed stunningly draconian sanctions against the New Orleans Saints– and indeed, by extension, their entire fan base, specifically the City of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana, who directly subsidize the National Football League.
I don’t intend to come across as a naive apologist for Sean Payton, and I certainly don’t endorse or agree in any way, shape, or form with the bounty program– though I think it has been ridiculously overhyped by sports journalists and the media, including, most unfortunately, Jeff Duncan of The Times-Picayune. At the very least, Payton probably lied about being ignorant of Greg Williams’s conduct. But I can’t really prove that, and no matter how hard he may try, neither can Roger Goodell. Again, Goodell’s only real evidence of Payton’s complicity is that Payton received an e-mail that contained a postscript directed at one of his assistant coaches. If Goodell had more, then you better believe, he would have included it in his overly-wrought statement.
While others in the media heap praise onto Goodell for sending a strong message against the (let’s face it) token incentivization that teammates provided one another for a devastating hit against their opponents (these guys are already payed $1,500 a play and would suffer exponentially larger fines than any bounty program could pay out if they knocked out an opponent illegally), I think it is critically important that we also question the validity of the evidence Goodell used to forever tarnish the reputation of Sean Payton and the integrity of an entire organization, particularly if it can be proven that the same conduct occurred in locker rooms all over the NFL. I may be biased, but to me, Goodell is merely attempting to make an example out of a small-market team before ever seriously investigating the actions of anyone else. To be sure, unlike others, I don’t believe this is because Goodell is conspiring to prevent the Saints from a Super Bowl appearance at the Super Dome; he will, after all, have to face the music himself when he doles out the Lombardi trophy in New Orleans next year. But it’s reckless, nonetheless.
Sean Payton may be a lying jerk. He may have partied too hard after the Saints won the Super Bowl in Miami. He may have implicitly allowed players to take prescription painkillers without the requisite prescription. And he may have known about what Greg Williams was up to, when Williams allowed players on the defense to pool together money for knocking out opponents. But there is no evidence that he cheated the game of football, unlike Bill Belichick, a coach who will likely be enshrined in Canton one day. Payton didn’t negligently kill someone else after driving drunk, like Donte Stallworth. He didn’t actively participate in murdering animals, like Michael Vick. Indeed, the only direct evidence of Payton’s crime: He received an e-mail that contained a postscript directed to the person who has admitted to orchestrating and organizing the entire program.
Some have suggested that Goodell took action against the Saints in order to send a message to those currently litigating against the NFL that the league takes player safety seriously. No they don’t.
Bill Dwyre of The LA Times, in an article criticizing Goodell’s decision and questioning whether Los Angeles should ever consent to joining a league headed up by Goodell, wrote, “The proof of that will be the years it will take, after Goodell’s sanctions, to get back to where they were. Those who doubt that, google the words ‘SMU’ and ‘Death Penalty.’” Amen, Mr. Dwyre. As a current SMU student whose sister, father, grandfather, and great-grandmother, among others, also attended SMU, your analogy is spot-on. SMU’s football program was eviscerated because it was the first NCAA team to be found breaking the rules that numerous other teams were also violating at the time. We are still recovering from the death penalty imposed in the 1980s, while major market, big school teams like USC have engaged in equally egregious conduct, only to be met with a slap on the wrist.
I, for one, hope that Coach Payton sues the pants off of Roger Goodell, an emperor who is already without clothes, and I hope the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana realize that they’re not, in any way, obligated to kiss Mr. Goodell’s ring: His punitive and arbitrary actions come at the direct expense of the taxpayers of the Gret Stet of Louisiana. We don’t owe him anything. We should be suing him, individually, instead of cowering to him. Without question, Roger Goodell and the sycophants who support him are more concerned with “sending” a message than with the real effects of that message.
Like this:
EXCLUSIVE: Revitalizing Our Community, Cenla-Based PAC, Paid Elected Officials As “Campaign Workers” On Election Day
After six years of blogging about Louisiana and, particularly, politics and government in Central Louisiana, this story takes the cake; it is, without question, the biggest news I have ever had the opportunity to exclusively report. It involves the former Speaker of the Louisiana House of Representatives, the current Louisiana Secretary of State, a Republican candidate and a Democratic candidate for Louisiana Lieutenant Governor, the former and now incoming Sheriff of Rapides Parish, current and former members of the Rapides Parish Police Jury, two members of the Alexandria City Council, a member of the Rapides Parish School Board, and a former candidate for Alexandria Mayor, and it exposes the ugly underbelly of Louisiana politics.
Let me be clear: I am not accusing anyone of committing a crime or an ethics violation. I’ll leave that up to the folks who are paid to make those determinations. And soon, I hope they will, because, at the very least, this diminishes the integrity of our election process.
I’ll start at the beginning.
The political action committee Revitalizing Our Community (or ROC) was established on March 17, 2010 by former Rapides Parish Police Juror Joe Fuller and current Rapides Parish Police Juror Oliver Overton.
Ostensibly, ROC was concerned with raising awareness for the issues that faced the residents of inner-city Alexandria. But for political watchers, such as myself, its actual aims quickly became abundantly clear: ROC was really created to influence the election for Alexandria Mayor. Shortly after it was formed, ROC endorsed a candidate, Von Jennings. Ms. Jennings, in the end, barely mustered 8% of the vote, but there is at least some consolation for her: Today, Von Jennings is the Treasurer of Revitalizing Our Community.
According to ROC’s financial disclosure statements, from its inception, it has been the beneficiary of the largesse of Charlie Dewitt, the former speaker of the Louisiana House.
Dewitt has given thousands and thousands of dollars to help prop up ROC, both through his mothballed campaign fund and through his businesses. Dewitt’s first contributions were received in September of 2010. You’ll also notice contributions from Myron Lawson and Butch Gautreaux; both of them were reimbursed completely for their donations.
And Dewitt’s most recent contribution was on November 15, 2011, a contribution that was dwarfed by the campaign for Sheriff William Earl Hilton:
ROC also lists $9,500 in contributions from Dewitt on October of 2011, right next to big checks from Tom Schedler, Rick Gallot, and Billy Nungesser.
I want to be completely clear: I have absolutely no reason to believe that these political campaigns did anything illegal or improper. But at the very least, it should raise some suspicions: Why are these campaigns donating thousands and thousands of dollars to a small and relatively unknown political action committee in Alexandria? And why are these donations only occurring a week or two before the election? How is this political action committee spending these donations?
PACs are not allowed to coordinate with any campaign. They can endorse candidates, but they’re not supposed to work for their campaigns. And usually, this means that PACs spend money on “uncoordinated” direct mail, TV and radio advertisements, and social media. I recognize the line is fuzzy, but the basic rule is: You can’t spend PAC money to staff your campaign.
I can’t know what these campaigns thought they were going to receive in exchange for a large donation to Revitalizing Our Community, but now, we all know what ROC spent their money on. And it wasn’t on TV or radio or even direct mail.
Despite the tens of thousands of dollars ROC has raised during the last two years, according to its most recent disclosure report, which was filed on February 15, 2012 and signed by its new Chairman Michael Caffery and its Treasurer Von Jennings, ROC ended 2011 — stunningly– with a NEGATIVE balance of $19,806.47. (To be clear, ROC should still be flush with cash, if the reporting on their overall contributions is accurate, and this should raise even more suspicion).
How could this possibly be? Where, on earth, did all of that money go?
Their most recent annual report, which was signed by Treasurer Von Jennings, provides the answers, and they’re shocking. ROC spent every last dime it had and more on “campaign workers,” thousands and thousands of dollars to dozens of people, including several elected officials. For example:
Rapides Parish School Board member Janet Dixon, the wife of Louisiana State Representative Herbert Dixon, made $1,250 as a “campaign worker.”
And, incidentally, Ms. Dixon wasn’t the only Dixon on the list, but I’ll let others sort through that.
Alexandria City Councilwoman Mitzi Gibson collected a cool $250 for her efforts:
Another Alexandria Councilman, Roosevelt Johnson, raked in even more:
Police Juror Oliver Overton made $100, though, to be fair, he’d donated $250 earlier, so it was essentially a refund:
Police Juror Theodore Fountaine made out a little better. He didn’t donate anything, but he was paid $250 as a campaign worker:
According to previous reporting, Von Jennings, the PAC’s treasurer and current candidate for Alexandria City Council, was also paid $500 as a “campaign worker.”
Again, ROC not only doled out large one-time checks to elected officials and their family members, it paid dozens and dozens of other people as well, and in so doing, it sunk itself into insolvency. Perhaps this is nothing more than reckless irresponsibility, the way “things are always done.” But in reading and rereading these reports, I can’t help but feel like this is simply a bald-faced exploitation of campaign finance laws.
What were all of these people doing for ROC? Why were they being paid hundreds of dollars as “campaign workers”? What campaign were they working on? It’s not unusual for campaigns to pay people to help get out the vote on election day, but it’s also not necessarily ideal: An effective campaign would much rather rely on motivated volunteers than people only interested in collecting a check for their participation in our democracy.
That said, ROC is not and has never been a “campaign;” it a PAC that is prohibited, by law, from colluding and coordinating with any campaign. Yet by any objective standard, it now certainly appears as if ROC was established as a shell organization with the hope of attracting thousands of dollars from politicians or those seeking political office in order so that it could then turn around and enrich dozens of people, most of whom are politically-connected. It could sink itself into debt or insolvency; it could keep those unaccountable “campaign workers” off of any individual campaign books. With all due respect to Sheriff William Earl Hilton’s campaign, what did they expect in return for their $5,000 contribution? Campaign workers? That’d be illegal.
To me, this is a poor reflection of American democracy; this is about gaming the political system, milking campaigns for as much as they can give and then doling the proceeds in exchange for votes.
But there’s another, even larger problem here: ROC claims its “funds-on-hand” is negative $19,806.47. The PAC has reported at least $60,000 in contributions over the last 23 months, yet it’s disclosed significantly less than that as expenditures. And somehow, it’s still nearly $20,000 short on funds. The numbers don’t add up; it definitely appears as if there are significant expenses that ROC has, thus far, kept off-the-books and undisclosed.
One final thing: In fairness, ROC has spent money on direct mail, once. It was little over $5,600, nearly two years ago. With a company called Dixon Solutions, which I’m sure is just completely coincidental, just another Dixon (also originally from Alexandria, by the way) who made thousands from ROC:
Irony: Conservative Think Tank To Bobby Jindal: The Louisiana Science Education Act Is A “Devastating Flaw”
On May 26, 2011, Stafford Palmieri, who was then serving as the Education and Workforce Policy Advisor to Governor Bobby Jindal, testified in front of the Louisiana House Committee on Education in opposition to the repeal of the Louisiana Science Education Act (the LSEA). Ms. Palmieri, a 2008 graduate of Yale University, offered a notably convoluted and torturous defense of the LSEA, a law that allows public school science teachers the ability to bypass the teaching of science and supplement their curricula with their own non-scientific and religiously-based beliefs.
“This bill is seeking to remove protections for teachers that give them the ability to teach the full breadth of scientific teaching,” Ms. Palmieri said. This is simply not true, however, as the LSEA has nothing to do with “scientific teaching” and everything to do with equivocating religious beliefs with science. Indeed, the LSEA does not “protect teachers” with “the ability to teach the full breadth of scientific teaching;” if anything, it harms our students by undermining the value and the integrity of science education. More than likely, the LSEA is also unconstitutional; it not only violates the precedent established by the Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, it also raises serious questions about our fundamental protection under the First Amendment against the state establishment of religion. No matter how hard some on the religious right may try, creationism and intelligent design are not scientific theories; they are both articles of religious faith. And as earnest as some may be in promoting such beliefs, when we conflate them with science, we are doing a disservice to both religion and science.
A few months ago, Ms. Palmieri was promoted to Policy Director for Governor Bobby Jindal, a commendable accomplishment for a young woman who is still in her mid-twenties. But there’s an interesting footnote here, and it needs to be pointed out.
And recently, despite Ms. Palmieri’s outspoken endorsement and defense of the LSEA, the Fordham Institute, her former employer, issued a report that chastised and ridiculed the LSEA in strong and direct language. Quoting (bold mine):
The Louisiana science standards are reasonably challenging and comprehensive, but they suffer from a devastating flaw: Thanks to the state’s 2008 Science Education Act, which promotes creationism instead of science, the standards (especially for biology and life science) are haunted by anti-science influences that threaten biology education in the state.
“A devastating flaw,” “haunted by anti-science influences that threaten biology education in the state.” This is not analysis by a partisan enemy of Governor Jindal; this is the opinion of the former employer of Governor Jindal’s Policy Director, a conservative think-tank.
I don’t know Ms. Palmieri, but I’m certain of a few things: Her testimony to the Committee on Education was riddled with misrepresentations. It is exceptional and noteworthy that the former employer of Governor Jindal’s Policy Director would publicly criticize her policy statements on education, the very issue she worked on when she was under their employ. And considering this, along with Ms. Palmieri’s exceptional resume, I can only conclude that she is merely doing the bidding of Governor Jindal, even if it means turning against her own true beliefs and the outspoken, public statements of her former colleagues.
This issue will not go away. I, for one, will not back down, and during the next few weeks, I’ll continue to call attention to this critical issue.
Last year, 43 Nobel laureates supported a repeal of the Louisiana Science Education Act. And thanks to the continued efforts of my friend Zack Kopplin, there are now 75 Nobel laureates on board; it’s astonishing.
Proudly, A Putz
Yesterday night, on my way home from school, like a dutiful son, I called my mother to check up on things. “Oh, by the way,” I said, “I’ve been exchanging tweets with Andrew Breitbart.”
“Who is Andrew Breitbart?”
“You remember him. He’s the guy who upstaged the Anthony Weiner press conference,” I said. “He broke that story, actually.”
“Oh, of course. But why is he talking to you?” Good question.
“Well,” I explained, “I wrote something on Twitter about his voice sounding like a love child between Owen Wilson and Dr. Evil, and he posted it on his Twitter. I think he thought it was funny. It was good-natured.”
“Just make sure it stays good-natured,” she said.
I don’t know if Breitbart actually thought my one-off joke was really funny. As I now know, he relished in retweeting criticisms of him. Today, one of my close friends told me that Breitbart had also retweeted two of his comments, neither of which are suitable for publication here. But regardless, I knew I was on his radar, and I had a couple of questions I wanted to ask him about his protege James O’Keefe. Earlier in the night, David Shuster of CurrentTV mistakenly said that O’Keefe was a convicted felon, a statement he corrected on Twitter.
To me, it was a strange analogy, almost an admission of sorts that O’Keefe, who Breitbart had once touted as the future of journalism (in so many words), was like a comedian posing as a journalist.
So, last night, I posed a question to him, and he responded almost immediately, in rapid-fire:
The crazy, incredible thing about the Internet and social media is the way in which it democratizes the free and open exchange of ideas. Like him or loathe him, Andrew Breitbart understood this; he embraced it, as unwieldy as he sometimes was. I don’t believe his analogy was apt or helpful to James O’Keefe, and I imagine that he understood this as well, which is likely why he spent a fair amount of time yesterday clarifying and expounding on it. But, at the very least, it was provocative, which was one of Breitbart’s signature traits.
As it turns out, his last “public” battle was with me, and his last public statement was to me. He apologized for calling me a “putz,” sort of. In fairness to him, he conditionally apologized, provided I hadn’t been “intentionally disingenuous” with him when I called his attention to an article in The Atlantic that said O’Keefe had pled guilty to a misdemeanor “with the intent to commit a felony.” And I wasn’t being intentionally disingenuous; The Atlantic had apparently misreported the story.
I immediately accepted his apology, and despite what The Daily Beast reported, I am certain he received my acceptance. Earlier in the night, I told him, “For what it’s worth, I begrudgingly respect that you’ve responded (to me).” I did. I thought it was cool.
This afternoon, I told ABC News that I wear Andrew Breitbart’s “putz” insult as a “badge of honor.” I wasn’t being facetious or flippant.
Less than an hour after he wrote me back, Andrew Breitbart died of a heart attack. He was only 43 years old– way, way too young.
When the news broke, only seven hours after he had written me back, my phone lit up. Today, I’ve been flooded with media requests, tweets, and Facebook comments, and on a personal level, it has been somewhat surreal. I’d never met Andrew Breitbart; I was just the last person mentioned in an epic opus of tweets (and incidentally, that does not make me “lucky,” as some of his fans have suggested).
I’m well-aware of what Andrew Breitbart gleefully said immediately after Ted Kennedy died. It wasn’t right; it was intended to hurt people who were grieving.
But during the last twelve hours, I’ve received messages from people all over the country congratulating me for “killing” Andrew Breitbart. It sickens me. It’s poisonous, vapid, hypocritical, dehumanizing hyperbole, and it’s not funny at all. None of it is. He was 43-years-old. He leaves behind a wife and four small children. I know a thing or two about this; my father died when he was only 41, leaving behind three teenagers.
I’ve also received messages from people all over the country alleging that Andrew Breitbart’s death was caused by liberals, even some suggesting the President himself ordered an assassination. Again, this is poisonous, vapid, hypocritical, dehumanizing hyperbole.
My heart aches for Andrew Breitbart’s family. But, for them, if there is some solace to be found, maybe it is this: That up until the hour before he passed, he was engaging, prodding, criticizing, and exchanging ideas and banter about the things in which he believed, with people, like me, who were more than happy to be in a debate with him. (And who still will hold fast to their own beliefs).
I hate to be a footnote, but I am proud to be called a “putz” by one of Tulane’s most famous graduates. Sometimes, an insult can be an honor.
The Hayride’s Absurd Attack Against The Louisiana Budget Project
I know Mr. Bonnette, and I know Ms. Flournoy. Mr. Bonnette is plain wrong. His post attacking the Louisiana Budget Project was, in my opinion, irresponsible, unprofessional, and sloppy reporting; it was reckless, bordering on the unethical. Instead of accomplishing what he apparently set out to do– “exposing” the Louisiana Budget Project as a nefarious and egregiously partisan organization (which it most certainly is not), Mr. Bonnette unwittingly exposes his own extremism and biases. With his references to conspiracies like the “new world order” and hackneyed, stupid tropes about the machinations of George Soros, Mr. Bonnette abandons any attempt to frame an objective, truth-seeking narrative and devolves into an almost paranoiac rant. And it’s a shame.
Again, I know many of the folks behind the Louisiana Budget Project and Louisiana Progress, including Ms. Flournoy. Indeed, I actually contributed to The Louisiana Progress Journal. And the plain and simple truth is this: Mr. Bonnette misreported the story. This isn’t a “sham” organization that takes its orders from a boogeyman billionaire intent on ushering in “a new world order;” that is laughable, ridiculous, over-the-top. This is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing Louisiana-centric scholarship on Louisiana issues that uniquely affect working class families. Mr. Bonnette and the folks at The Hayride may not agree with them on substantive policy, and that is absolutely their right. But suggesting that they and dozens of other outstanding organizations all over the country are shams– without conducting an ounce of real research and relying entirely on the fact that a George Soros-backed non-profit organization gave them some funding (which has always been well-known to anyone paying attention)– is shoddy work, and with respect to Mr. Bonnette, it deserves to be called out.
It’s also ironic: If conservatives want to lecture progressives on billionaires giving money to influence politics and policy, then they need to begin by taking a good, hard look in the mirror. The Koch brothers have used their wealth to fund political campaigns that advance economic policies which would make them even wealthier. Soros, on the other hand, has given away billions, all over the world, to help the less fortunate and to expose political and media hypocrisy. Mr. Bonnette mentions Media Matters as an example of Soros’s destructive influence; I think Media Matters is an incredibly valuable resource.
In the past, I’ve called out and criticized two conservative organizations in Louisiana: The Pelican Institute for Public Policy and the Louisiana Family Forum. I criticized the Pelican Institute for holding itself up as Louisiana’s “first think tank,” when, in actuality, it was founded by a New Yorker, created- almost entirely- by out-of-state interests, and built on borrowed scholarship from national conservative think tanks. The Louisiana Budget Project and Louisiana Progress are none of those. And with respect to the Louisiana Family Forum, my criticism was not focused on their sources of funding (with the exception of a nationally-recognized hate group) but on the ways in which they transferred tax-deductible donations from their 501c3 to their political advocacy arm, a 501c4, allowing them to establish a campaign apparatus with tax-deductible money (I don’t know if this is illegal, but it most certainly seems unethical, considering that donations to their 501c4 would otherwise not be tax-deductible). I don’t have the proof, the hubris, or the belief that these conservative non-profits are engaging in some sort of new world order conspiracy; I think they’re guilty of misleading Louisiana. And again, that has never been the case with the Louisiana Budget Project or Louisiana Progress. You can disagree with their policy positions, but as non-profits, they’ve always been on the up-and-up, which shouldn’t be surprising when you consider that both were created by the founder and former President of the Louisiana Association of Non-Profit Organizations (LANO).
I assume that Mr. Bonnette is transitioning from being a journalist into being a partisan blogger, because, without a doubt, his post would never pass muster with his former editors at The Town Talk. It does, however, pass the scrutiny of the editor of The Hayride, Scott McKay, who posted this today on Facebook:
Yeah. Ha. Ha. Ha. Nuclear weapon. Millions of innocent people dead. Parking lot for China. Americans burn the Koran, and we apologize! That’s the last straw! Sand turns into glass (Someone needs to tell David O’Connor that Afghanistan is not a desert). Seriously, this is disgusting, rancid, jingoistic bile, and Scott McKay hopes to capitalize off of his opinions on his website through people like Lt. Governor Jay Dardenne, whose campaign took out $900 in ads on The Hayride.
Thankfully, Louisiana is fortunate to have some intelligent, compassionate, and ethical people who think deeply about policy, people like those involved in the Louisiana Budget Project and Louisiana Progress.
One more thing from Scott McKay’s Facebook, which puts this all into context:
Mr. Bonnette thinks he’s exposed “evil.” He thinks that George Soros, a Hungarian Jew, sent “fellow Jews to slaughter” when he was a child. And why? Because, as a kid, in order to survive, Soros told the Nazis he was a Christian. Mr. Bonnette’s comments, which mimic comments made by people like Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck, are nothing more than hate-mongering hyperbole. It turns my stomach: Blaming a Jewish child for sending “fellow Jews to slaughter” is an almost unfathomably loathsome remark, no matter how you land on the political spectrum. And attempting to connect this stupid conspiracy theory to the Louisiana Budget Project– to pat yourself on the back for “exposing evil”– borders on delusional narcissism.
Councilman Jerry Jones’s Epic Takedown: “This Is Not The 1960s”
Without a doubt, Greg Aymond and Von Jennings didn’t see this coming.
(Scroll to the 29 minute mark)
Alexandria City Councilman Jerry Jones has only been in office for two months, and already, he is the target of an absurd and scurrilous ethics complaint, a complaint that bears the imprimatur of local attorney and blogger, Greg Aymond.
From almost the moment Mr. Jones was sworn in, Mr. Aymond has publicly criticized and ridiculed him, labeling him an “Uncle Tom,” doctoring photographs of him to make it appear as if he is a slave and, bizarrely, a rabbi (this was meant as an insult), and publishing a series of patently untrue and hateful allegations about him.
As we learned recently, Mr. Aymond’s latest tactic against Councilman Jones: Filing an ethics complaint, alleging, among other things, that he had a charge account at Council President Harry Silver’s men’s clothing store and implying that Jones exchanged his vote for Councilman Silver’s Presidency, neither of which is true. At the heart of the complaint is the allegation that Councilman Jones was not an actual Councilman until his paperwork was processed by the Louisiana Secretary of State, an allegation that is laughable on its face. Jerry Jones, like every other elected or appointed public official in Louisiana, became a duly-recognized official the moment he was sworn in by a judge. At that moment, he became invested with the rights, responsibilities, and powers inherent to his office. Greg Aymond’s complaint, which was filed on behalf of perennial Council meeting gadflies Gayle Underwood and Jules Green, is nothing more than a political farce.
It’s relatively easy to connect the dots here. Jerry Jones was appointed over the objections of three Councilpersons, who had supported Von Jennings for the position. Ms. Jennings, who launched a spectacularly unsuccessful campaign for Alexandria Mayor in 2010 and who, before that, was fired from the City Administration, immediately made clear her intention to challenge Mr. Jones in the November elections. As I can personally attest, Ms. Jennings, as a candidate for Mayor, deployed an almost comically divisive and hate-mongering campaign-by-proxy, and it backfired. The Town Talk fills in the rest of the blanks (bold mine):
Jules Green, a District 4 resident, and Gayle Underwood, who lives in District 5, filed the complaint, Jones said. The duo is represented by Alexandria attorney and blogger Greg Aymond, who has been a vocal supporter of Von Jennings, a candidate against Jones in the upcoming District 3 election.
Aymond has referred to Jones as an “Uncle Tom” on his blog.
….
Jones was appointed that day to replace Jonathan Goins, who resigned on Dec. 2. Mayor Jacques Roy cast the deciding vote after the council was split with three votes in favor of Jones and three votes supporting Jennings, who had the endorsement of many members of the district’s three neighborhood groups.
I take exception with only one thing, the use of the word “endorsement.” Ms. Jennings claimed that she had the “endorsement” of “members” of “neighborhood groups,” but without question, the same could be said about Mr. Jones, who had just as many people speak in favor of his candidacy and just as many votes as Ms. Jennings had. But setting that aside, it should be abundantly clear what is going on. Mr. Jones did not do anything illegal, unethical, or improper, but no doubt, that is not the point; this is about Mr. Jones’s political opponents attempting to foster the implication of impropriety, the hushed rumors of him being “accused” of ethics violations.
But there’s only one problem with this strategy: These people do not know Jerry Jones.
As he forcefully demonstrated today, Councilman Jones may be new to the City Council, but he fully appreciates the ways in which a small group of people have, over the years, colluded with one another in an attempt to consolidate power and personally destroy anyone who poses a threat. And although he may be young and still catching his bearings, Councilman Jones did something today that was bold and refreshing: He exposed the collusion between Greg Aymond– the former member of the Ku Klux Klan and racial provocateur, the man who referred to him as an “Uncle Tom,” the man who considers the noose as a symbol of the “freedom of expression” and, for a long while, brandished it on his website, the man who published a missive about African-American leaders in Alexandria titled “N**** Street Thugs,” the man who said “blacks” are “lacking in ethics”– and a small but vocal group of African-Americans who seek positions of leadership and power.
It’s the nasty underbelly of local politics, an unholy alliance, and as Councilman Jones deftly pointed out, it’s being undertaken by people who will, at one moment, extol the virtues of Martin Luther King, Jr. and denounce the terrible legacy of racism, and yet, at the next moment, seek the service, opinion, and confidence of a man who has spent the last thirty years of his life trafficking in the politics of racial divisiveness. This is not ironic; that is too nice of a word. This is cynical. This is about fueling those flames, re-litigating those battles, re-drawing those lines.
And it won’t work. Jerry Jones represents both the present and the future of Alexandria when he says (bold mine), “There is no big race issue that’s about to happen in the middle of MacArthur Drive with folks attacking each other. This is not the 1960s. This is 2012. We go to school together. This man (Aymond) may have not wanted us to go to school together, but thank God, someone had the sense to let us go to school together.”
“I’m not going anywhere,” Councilman Jones said. And thank God for that.
Louisiana College’s Stunningly Stupid Lawsuit
Yesterday, Louisiana College filed suit against the federal government, seeking to prevent the government from enforcing a policy that mandates insurance companies to provide for birth control and contraception medication.
I don’t want to get into the nitty gritty debate. Suffice it to say, I think the Obama Administration struck a fair compromise on this issue, allowing religious institutions the flexibility to maintain their own autonomy while, at the same time, ensuring that vitally important contraceptive coverage is still guaranteed for those women in need, including the nearly 98% of Catholic women who use or have used birth control.
For Louisiana College, in my opinion, this is nothing more than an attempt to grab at the headlines. And truth be told: I’d be cool with Louisiana College’s lawsuit about this if they weren’t the beneficiary of tens of millions of dollars in public subsidization, mostly tax-free. They are, essentially, suing the federal government for requiring that someone else (their insurance provider) pay for birth control for their female employees, because Joe Aguillard and the Dean of their new law school– whatever his name is– don’t want to pay, even indirectly, for birth control. This has nothing to do with abortion, got that? Nothing.
Two men telling women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies, pathetically acting like their beliefs are being assailed, both full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.
To them, I’d say: I have a religious and moral objection to having my tax dollars subsidize your institution. To them, I’d say: There are much worse things than knowing that your money may possibly help someone get birth control. For example, there could be rumors about people engaging in behavior that contradicts Levitical law. But who knows if this is true, right? It’d simply be dangerous, scandalous, disastrous rumors involving someone’s personal life, and after all, that should be beyond the pale.
Yet if LC has to pay, even indirectly (through a private insurer), for someone’s birth control pills, then the administration wants to know about the personal lives of their employees. Apparently, they’re really worried that their female employees could, secretly, be exploiting their own insurance policies to abort babies. (After all, that’s what birth control coverage is about, right? It means aborting babies, right?).
The simplest explanation is this: Louisiana College wants a headline. We’re going to give it to them. They want to be culture warriors. They want to raise money for their ill-begotten law school. That also may happen. They may raise a few bucks off of this ploy.
I recognize that my contribution is indirect, but nonetheless, it exists. So, until you refuse to accept my money and the public’s money to help keep your institution afloat, you can either feign righteous indignation OR you can begin to actually pay proper taxes, like the rest of us, and contribute to the very system from which you disproportionately benefit.
And to the City of Shreveport, Louisiana, to Mayor Cedric Glover: If you are giving Louisiana College a single penny to help them launch their “law” school, then the people of Shreveport need to know that you’re handing their money to these people– politicized cultural “warriors,” zealots who think their religion somehow makes them above the law– because, somehow, they are more “moral.”
I have an ax to grind, to be sure. My grandfather, a medical doctor who is currently a resident of an assisted living facility in Alexandria, helped to invent the birth control pill, when he was a researcher in Michigan during the 1950s. He didn’t make a dime off of it, and I have nothing to gain either by speaking out. But Joe Aguillard and Louisiana College, they’ve been the beneficiaries of taxpayer money for years and years.
To Mayor Glover: With all due respect, drop the funding. I realize it may be difficult (I doubt Governor Jindal has the courage), but if LC is as earnest and as righteous as it claims to be, it can surely survive without being paid by people who are morally opposed to its mission. At the very least, Mayor Glover, you’d force LC to be consistent. And man, that would be awesome.
Bobby Jindal Is Mooning Louisiana
A few days ago, The Wall Street Journal compared Governor Bobby Jindal’s plans for education reform to Newt Gingrich’s plans for a moon colony. And they weren’t being facetious or ironic. Quoting from their article “Jindal’s Education Moon Shot“:
Newt Gingrich wants the U.S. to return to the moon, but as challenges go he has nothing on Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s school reform plans.
Mr. Jindal wants to create America’s largest school voucher program, broadest parental choice system, and toughest teacher accountability regime—all in one legislative session. Any one of those would be a big win, but all three could make the state the first to effectively dismantle a public education monopoly.
In an attempt at praising Jindal’s “reform” efforts, The Wall Street Journal unwittingly reinforced something most rational people already understand: Like Gingrich’s pitch for a colony on the moon, Jindal’s plan for education is irrational, untested, grandiose, and absurd. But at least they got one thing right: While Jindal and company attempt to convince us that they’re merely proposing scholarships, the simple and obvious truth is that they are calling for “America’s largest school voucher program.” Let’s get this out of the way: Jindal’s voucher plan is comically infeasible and impractical. From The Times-Picayune:
Under Jindal’s plan, about 380,000 students would qualify to receive state aid for tuition at a private or religious school, (Senator) Landrieu pointed out.
But even if every private elementary school in the state could immediately grow its enrollment by 10 percent to accommodate an influx of voucher recipients, only about 8,000 seats would be available. Include private high schools and that figure rises to about 11,200.
Jindal, by the way, did not dispute these numbers. He didn’t dispute that his voucher plan cannot and will not work, that there is no possible way he could ever deliver on his promise. Instead, his spokesperson said that Senator Landrieu was “missing the point.” No, no, she’s not. She’s speaking precisely on point: Jindal cannot deliver right now.
Thus far, unfortunately, teacher unions and the superintendents are playing right into Jindal’s hands. The teacher unions are harping on teacher pay and benefits; the superintendents, who stand to gain even more discretionary powers, are distancing themselves as quickly as possible, hoping to appear as apolitical as possible. I wonder, though: Are any of these people aware of the end-game here? Because Jindal’s proposals about performance-based pay and tenure are just window-dressing. On their own, they’re radical, to be sure, but not nearly as radical as Jindal’s end-game. Ultimately, Jindal’s goal, as The Wall Street Journal notes, is not merely to create the country’s “largest voucher program;” it’s about using taxpayer dollars to establish an undemocratic, unprotected parallel education system.
Senator Landrieu points out that we simply don’t have enough private-school openings to accommodate even a fraction of the kids to whom Jindal plans to give vouchers. She’s right, and on its surface, this makes Jindal’s plan foolish. Except vouchers aren’t really the issue either. Surely, Jindal is smart enough to know his numbers simply don’t add up, that there is no possible way he could ever deliver vouchers to even 5% of the kids who qualify. It’s a sham. And it’s meant to be a sham. It’s meant to provide the Governor with the ability to establish a threshold of public dollars per student that Louisianans would be willing to contribute toward the development of a parallel charter and for-profit education system and infrastructure. And he’s aiming at $8,500 per student per year. Again, this is precisely why Mr. Jindal unveiled his program in front of the largest group of business lobbyists in the State of Louisiana; there is a ton of money to be made in privatizing public education.
Mr. Jindal’s proponents will likely point to the charter school model created in New Orleans after the storm. There are many good people doing exceptional things in charter schools and in the Recovery School District, but sorry, it’s absolutely absurd to attribute any marginal successes in New Orleans education to a business model. When charters fail and when charters go bankrupt, which is the case more often than proponents would have us believe, it can be abruptly catastrophic for students and their families. And because of the way most charters are structured, there is little to no accountability when they fail.
I, for one, am tired of Bobby Jindal “experimenting” with Louisiana. Despite the fact that his diploma is from one of the finest public high schools in the country, Baton Rouge Magnet, I don’t believe he is an advocate for public education. For months, my buddy Zack Kopplin, a fellow graduate of Baton Rouge Magnet, pestered the public and the media about the Louisiana Science Education Act (the LSEA). If you need any evidence that Mr. Jindal doesn’t care about the quality of public education, then all you need to do is look at the LSEA, a pernicious and likely unconstitutional piece of legislation that allows public schools to substitute science with religion, a piece of legislation that was brought to you and funded through the generous contributions of the radical religious right– groups like the Discovery Institute and the (in my opinion, shady) Louisiana Family Forum. Mr. Jindal, a Biology major from Brown, likely knows better; he was even criticized by his own college biology professor. But while Mr. Jindal doubled-down on the radical right and signed a bill undermining the integrity of science education in our public schools, Zack did something else: He received endorsements from over 71 Noble Prize laureates calling for a repeal of the law. You know how many Nobel laureates have endorsed Governor Jindal? None. Zero.
When he signed the LSEA, Governor Jindal wasn’t guided by any metrics of academic performance; he wasn’t concerned with preserving the integrity of the institution of public education. Mr. Jindal was merely playing politics. And so it is with his proposed overhaul of education.
The inconvenient truth, ironically, is that public schools in Louisiana have improved during the last few years. Our graduation rates have increased by nearly 6% since 2001; we’re closing the so-called “achievement gap;” test scores are up. There’s no reason to suddenly panic, and certainly, there’s no basis for attempting to completely overhaul the entire education system.
Louisiana, we don’t need to be, once again, turned into Bobby Jindal’s experimental laboratory. We tried that once before, when he was Secretary of the DHH, and it didn’t work out well at all.
Mr. Jindal, despite his impressive academic pedigree, is and has always been manifestly and vehemently opposed to a robust and successful public education system. Our charter schools in New Orleans may be performing better than comparable schools were before the storm, but, really, so what? Who is to say that our public schools wouldn’t have rebounded just as well, had they only been given the same resources, priorities, and treatment as our charters? We strip money from public education, give it to private and quasi-private charters, and then, we wonder about why charters are out-performing public schools. We’re being dangerously naive.
Louisiana is still at the bottom of many public education rankings, and without any doubt, there is a lot of work to be done. But think about this: Every single state that is ranked higher than Louisiana is working with the same toolkit. They’re not giving millions and millions of taxpayer dollars to build a parallel system of education more adept at maximizing private-sector profits (no, this is definitely Bobby Jindal’s “moon shot”); they’re beating Louisiana because they’re investing in themselves. We, on the other hand, are being led by a man who seems all too eager and willing to privatize the most important public institution in the United States of America- the right to an education.
If Bobby Jindal wants to reform public education in Louisiana, then he needs to go back to the drawing board. If he is serious, then he needs to begin talking with educators instead of business lobbyists and radical fundamentalists. If anyone should profit from public education, it should be the people who actually invest their own money, not those who use public dollars for the expressed purpose of dismantling public education.
And if not, Jindal will continue to moon all of us, as he flies toward America’s newest extraterrestrial colony, a slab of rock hurling around the earth, a place that appears in phases and adheres to its own cycles, a land called Gingrich.
Like this:
Tony Brown: If At First You Don’t Succeed, Lie, Lie Again
As the old adage goes, politics makes for strange bedfellows. This is certainly the case in Alexandria.
And there’s another adage that also comes to mind: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
I understand that a few folks may have thought that my most recent post about talk radio host Tony Brown was “harsh.” Maybe it was. But I make no apologies. In my opinion, Mr. Brown’s outlandish, public accusations against the City of Alexandria administration deserve a full-throated, thorough, and rigorous response. If you’re going to accuse people of conspiring to suppress African-American voter registration, which is a serious charge, then you should be prepared with the facts, and if you’re going to do so on publicly-owned airwaves, then you should, at the very least, provide those you are accusing with the opportunity to respond.
The simple truth is: Mr. Brown is wrong. He may be entitled to his own opinions, but he’s not entitled to his own facts. As I mentioned previously, the facts are straight forward: It doesn’t matter who you are or how noble your intentions may be; if you seek to use a public facility, then you need an agreement in place. There’s absolutely nothing wrong or pernicious about such a policy; it’s sensible, and it’s fair.
Only hours after I published my post about this, Tony Brown responded. But he didn’t respond on his own show. He responded with an “interview” with the blogger Greg Aymond.
Before I delve into the specifics of this interview, I think readers should be aware of a few things. During the Jena Six protests, Tony Brown, like me, was an outspoken advocate for fair justice. Meanwhile, Greg Aymond was the attorney for Richard Barrett, the leader and founder of the White Nationalist Movement, a recognized hate group that sued the Town of Jena for the right to get a permit to conduct a counter-protest. Indeed, the late Mr. Barrett actually spent the night at Mr. Aymond’s home in Alexandria. Mr. Aymond, a former member of the KKK, may claim he was also interested in fair justice– not necessarily for the Jena Six, though, but for the leader of a white supremacist organization.
Incidentally, Mr. Barrett was later murdered by a young African-American man after Barrett allegedly attempted to have sex with him against his will. Seriously, the whole story is nothing short of bizarre.
During his interview, Tony Brown repeatedly praised Greg Aymond, and Greg Aymond returned the favor, claiming that Tony Brown “has over two million listeners a day.”
Let’s start with that: TWO MILLION LISTENERS A DAY. Here is a list of the most popular radio shows in the country, ranked by WEEKLY listeners:
| Program | Weekly Listeners in Millions |
|---|---|
| American Top 40 | 20+ worldwide |
| The Alex Jones Show | 15+ |
| The Rush Limbaugh Show | 15+ |
| The Sean Hannity Show | 14+ |
| Morning Edition | 13+ |
| All Things Considered | 13+ |
| Glenn Beck Program | 9+ |
| The Savage Nation | 9+ |
| The Mark Levin Show | 8.5+ |
| The Dave Ramsey Show | 8.5+ |
| Delilah | 8+ |
| The Neal Boortz Show | 6+ |
| The Laura Ingraham Show | 6+ |
| Fresh Air | 5+ |
| Car Talk | 4+ |
| Coast to Coast AM | 3+ (Most listened to late-night radio show) |
Extrapolating from these weekly numbers, Tony Brown, with allegedly two million listeners per day (times five days a week), would be seventh most popular radio show in the United States of America, more popular than Glenn Beck, Delilah, Laura Ingraham, and Fresh Air, among others. It’s an astoundingly ridiculous and embarrassingly laughable claim. It’s difficult to know where that number actually came from. Do two million people even live in the areas that carry his show? Probably not, and probably not by a long-shot.
But, I suppose, using this logic, my blog has an audience of 2.095 BILLION, which is the total number of people connected to the Internet. Impressive, huh? To Mr. Aymond, you asked for my blog stats. Well, there you have it: 2.095 BILLION.
I’m not trying to beat a dead horse here, but this was, literally, the first thing Mr. Aymond claimed about Tony Brown during his interview. And it speaks directly to the integrity, the credibility, and the honesty of both men. Two million listeners per day: That’s nearly half of the entire population of Louisiana; that’s more than 40 times the entire population of the City of Alexandria.
Mr. Brown didn’t dispute this claim; instead, he said that his show was broadcast in the “entire State of Louisiana,” which it isn’t.
I think my pal AlexCenla was much more on target, when he estimated that Tony Brown’s listening audience was closer to around 400 people a day, which, to be fair, is only a difference of 1.999996 million and which that, yes, means my audience is much larger.
Of course, a fair question would be: If Tony Brown receives two million listeners every day, much more than Michael Baisden, then why on earth would he waste nearly thirty minutes of his time interviewing with Greg Aymond about something I published on my completely and totally irrelevant blog? I don’t get it either.
Mr. Brown, interestingly, never really disputed any of the facts I published. He played the “blame the messenger” card by way of blaming the messenger, and he doubled-down on his lies in an attempt to save face, I suppose. He never once got my name right, referring to me alternately as Lamarcus, Lance, Leroy, and Fredricka, and suggesting that we’d never met, that he wouldn’t be able to pick me “out from Adam.” Here’s the thing, though: I’ve met Tony Brown on at least a half of a dozen occasions. I’m not sure what affects his memory or his retention. He said I “lost” my job with the City; no, I resigned to attend law school. He said I was hired as a “computer guy” and that I was nothing more than a “crony.” For someone who claimed he doesn’t know me, he sure seemed to believe he knew a lot about me– none of which is true, by the way.
But ultimately, this has nothing to do with whether Tony Brown “knows” me. He doesn’t really know Jacques Roy either, for what it’s worth. That doesn’t necessarily qualify or disqualify “journalism.” (And believe me, contrary to what Mr. Brown told Mr. Aymond, I don’t dream about being a journalist. If Tony Brown considers himself to be a journalist, then those wouldn’t be dreams; they’d be nightmares). In all seriousness, this is ultimately about the objective, realizable, foreseeable, and currently-appreciable knowable record; it’s about the facts.
Voter disenfranchisement is a serious, criminal accusation. As Mr. Brown’s interview forcefully and almost comically demonstrates, he seeks to have it both ways: Labeling himself as a journalist, but when the facts don’t quite fit with the story he seeks to advance, suggesting that he is only offering his opinions and is, himself, the victim of a conspiracy.
For what it’s worth, Mr. Brown, I’ll interview you on my blog any time you want.
Like this:
Questioning Tony Brown’s Ethics and Professionalism
Earlier this week, on his radio show, Alexandria talk radio host Tony Brown leveled an explosive and sensational charge against leaders of the City of Alexandria: That they were purposely attempting to deny and suppress African-American voter registration. The accusations were quickly, almost instantly, reposted on Greg Aymond’s website, with Mr. Aymond directly accusing Mayor Roy of responsibility.
The story, in a nutshell, is this:
This year, during the City’s annual Martin Luther King, Jr. Day celebration, members of the Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority, without any prior consent or agreement, showed up at the Alexandria Riverfront Center, the location of the event, and attempted to set up a booth, allegedly with the intention of conducting a voter registration drive. But before they could get their booth set up, they were informed that they did not have permission to use the facility. Indeed, although the City of Alexandria helped to sponsor the festivities, the center had actually been rented out to a non-profit ministerial alliance and the Buffalo Soldiers, both of whom, like the AKA, are African-American-led non-profit organizations.
Both Mr. Brown and Mr. Aymond incorrectly reported or implied that the City of Alexandria is responsible for renting the Alexandria Riverfront Center. To be clear, although the City owns the Riverfront Center, the facility is managed by the Alexandria/Pineville Convention and Visitors Bureau. Either way, though, when an organization seeks to utilize a public facility for any purpose, it is necessary for them to have a written agreement for such use; this not only protects and indemnifies the public from potential liability; it also protects the organization renting the facility. AKA, however noble their intention may have been, did not have an agreement and, apparently, did not even attempt to pursue an agreement; they just showed up. And when they were given the word that they could not use the facility without an agreement, apparently- one can only surmise, some of its members alleged that this denial was a racially-motivated conspiracy to suppress African-American voters.
Without any question and with all due respect to the AKA, if they had actually contacted the good people of the Alexandria/Pineville Convention and Visitors Bureau beforehand and then entered into a written agreement, then they would have been granted the use of the facility at no cost, just as the other groups were on that day.
But the truth doesn’t make for good radio, I suppose, and Tony Brown, a man who was recently paid thousands of dollars to run controversial race-baiting commercials on behalf of William Earl Hilton’s campaign for Sheriff, is apparently never one to let a potentially explosive and racially divisive story go unnoticed, despite the facts. ”This was about not getting more African-Americans to register to vote. I’m not going to give y’all the opportunity to register more black folks to register to vote in this town. Y’all got too many registered voters already,” Brown said on his radio show on Tuesday.
The truth, of course, is much more innocuous than Mr. Brown (and Mr. Aymond) would want people to believe: One group had a public facilities use agreement, and one did not. The City administration is not responsible for executing and enforcing those agreements; the CVB is. And they didn’t do anything wrong. They merely ensured compliance with a legal agreement. This wasn’t about discriminating against the AKA; it was about ensuring the opposite: That no one is unfairly discriminated against, that everyone abides by the same rules when they seek to set up shop in a public building, regardless of however noble their intentions may be.
But Tony Brown makes a living, in part, stoking and promoting the flames of racial divisiveness. He blamed the City administration for seeking to suppress African-American voters, an absurd and hateful allegation, and given the true facts, an allegation that seems antithetical to the life’s work and the legacy of the man being honored that day, Martin Luther King, Jr.
Tony Brown spent nearly an hour talking about this story this week, fielding phone calls from several listeners, and doubling down on his sensationalistic and contrived outrage by suggesting that the City of Alexandria requires, in its agreements, that anyone who uses public buildings agree to not criticize the City administration. Sandra Bright, the outgoing leader of the Lower Third Neighborhood Watch Association, was named as the source of this incredibly disturbing news, though, in fairness to Ms. Bright, she never appeared on Mr. Brown’s show; these words were put into her mouth by others. And suffice it to say, as someone who knows exactly and precisely what these agreements look like and how they are structured, this accusation is not just ignorant; it’s maddeningly stupid. If Ms. Bright or Mr. Brown can offer even a scintilla of evidence that this is the case, then I am more than happy to issue a public apology; I’ll put the apology on the front page of my website for an entire year. But this is nothing more than a completely contrived lie.
Alexandria deserves better than Tony Brown’s lies. I don’t really care who he has worked for in the past or how important or influential he may believe himself to be; the man is an unethical, unprofessional, race-baiting liar whose antipathy toward the City of Alexandria and the Mayor has less to do with policy and almost everything to do with money.
And I can back it up, Mr. Brown.
When City Attorney Chuck Johnson, an African-American, asked Mr. Brown if he could appear on his show to clear up the controversy and present the facts, this is what Mr. Brown wrote back:
From: Tony Brown
Date: January 20, 2012 4:18:00 AM CST
To: Chuck Johnson
Subject: Re: Program
Reply-To: Tony Brown
Eyes Open is an open formatt for listeners to tell their story! The AKA’s and Links did just that. The opposing side came from Minister Larry Turner. In my more than 25 years of working as a journalist my ethics and professionalism has never been called into question by any city I ve worked in.I appreciate your’re interest in coming on the show but no one from your adminsitration has come on eyes open for several years now and certainly has not tried to use this formatt for any radio buys which has been numerous with others who don’t question the ethics or professionalism of the Jacque Roy administration.When we decide to advance this story we may decide to give you a call, until then, Town Talk, KALB-TV, KBCE Mix 93.9, 102 Jamz, Kiss 97.9 and The On Point Show with Mrs Xmas…those stations and shows that your administration spends money with, I suggest you reach out to them.T BrownEyes Open
In his 25 years of journalism, Mr. Brown says his ethics and professionalism have never been called into question. I’m honored to be the first person to do so: Tony Brown, I call your ethics and professionalism into question.
Tony Brown believes he can spend as much time as he wants to on publicly-owned, publicly-regulated airwaves making baseless, defamatory, divisive, and race-baiting accusations about specific individuals in the City of Alexandria, but that he does not owe them an opportunity to counter these claims on air and on the same forum. Reverend Larry Turner, incidentally, does not and has never represented the City of Alexandria; he was an organizer of the Martin Luther King Day event, but it’s completely disingenuous and dishonest for Tony Brown to assert that Reverend Turner represented the “opposing side.” Reverend Turner was not asked and was under no obligation to oppose the numerous and sensationalistic lies espoused and advanced by Tony Brown against the City of Alexandria; Reverend Turner was simply defending himself, and righteously so, I may add.
But perhaps most insidiously, Tony Brown reveals that he is not interested in hearing from the City Attorney– on a story that he broke and manufactured almost entirely on his own– because the City of Alexandria doesn’t spend advertising dollars lining his pockets. Read between the lines, folks. Read this with your eyes wide open. A few years ago, as I recall, the City took out an ad on Mr. Brown’s radio show promoting the Que’in on the Red festival, and Mr. Brown, despite this, actually discouraged his listeners from attending the very festival his show had been paid to help promote. Maybe it was an act of righteous defiance, but more than likely, I believe, it was nothing more than a reflection of Mr. Brown’s arrogance: He didn’t approve of the musical line-up for some inane reason. Now, I don’t know about you, but if I ever spent thousands of dollars advertising my business or my event on someone’s radio show, only to have the show host then discourage people from supporting my business or my event, I’d never spend another dime with that person. That’s what happened to Tony Brown, and apparently, he is still bitter.
Again, I don’t think Tony Brown is ethical or professional, and frankly, I am surprised no one has questioned his integrity until now. There’s a treasure trove of evidence out there that he simply cannot avoid.
There’s one other thing, which is extremely important for Alexandrians and for listeners of Mr. Brown’s radio show to understand: He operates on a noncommercial, educational radio station. That’s right. And as such, he and his station are beholden to a completely different set of rules and criteria, particularly as it relates to advertising and the free and open exchange of ideas.
For some reason, Tony Brown apparently believes he can accuse others of committing crimes– serious crimes; he can suggest that an entire City administration believes and endorses the suppression of African-American voters; he can broadcast lies over and over and over again. But if you want to respond, then please, send in your check first. I’m sure he’d take cash as well.
Sue me, Tony. I’d love to get you under oath. It’d be fun. You could call Greg Aymond as a character witness.
PS: Senator Landrieu and Mayor Landrieu, do the good and decent people of Alexandria and Central Louisiana a favor– the people who actually supported you and actually campaigned for you and actually gave you money– STOP giving this man credibility. Seriously. My audience, without any doubt, is bigger than his, and unlike him, I (perhaps stupidly) do all of this for free. Maybe I should have taken lessons from Tony Brown.
Like this:
Everyone Has A Disability
Less than two weeks ago, on the night of January 5th, I was hanging out with some friends at the Blue Nile on Frenchman Street in New Orleans. For many reasons, it’s become one of my favorite places in New Orleans, though, admittedly it’s primarily because I’m good friends with a handful of its employees, and whenever I am there, they treat me like family.
I’m also an unabashed fan of Frenchman Street. For someone like me, someone who can only visit New Orleans sporadically and who can’t stand the stench, the obnoxious public drunkenness, and the claustrophobia of Bourbon Street, for example, Frenchman is vastly superior, at least in my opinion. There’s a reason Austin needs to remind people to “Keep Austin Weird,” an underlying fear that the unique, cultured, and urbane enclave it has become could easily be eroded and destroyed and, with that, a tacit acknowledgment that its “weirdness” is relatively new and fragile. New Orleans may have its fair share of gimmicky slogans, but if the storm and the recovery have proven anything, it’s that the city’s culture is deeply engrained in its DNA. There are, of course, hugely important discussions about the nature and the direction of the city’s ongoing recovery and the need for historic preservation, yet New Orleans proves, at least to me, that culture is more resilient than buildings; real culture is weatherproof, and as threatened and as fearful as some of New Orleans’s biggest champions may have been about the potential of losing that culture– of Disneyfication or corporatization (some of which, no doubt, has occurred), New Orleanians don’t have to remind themselves of the fierce urgency of maintaining their own “weirdness.” Baby, they were born that way.
But I digress.
It was the night of January 5th, and I was upstairs at the Blue Nile, sitting on the balcony outside and catching up with my friend Daniel. At some point, we moved back inside to visit with our friend, who was tending the bar. And I was happy, ebullient even, thankful to be reunited with so many of my friends, many of whom I hadn’t seen in seven or eight months, and I was marveling at New Orleans.
I can pinpoint the exact moment this occurred, because immediately beforehand, I sent out the following sentimentally ridiculous tweet:
I pressed send, I walked to the bathroom, and then, while making my way back to my seat, I accidentally bumped into a girl. I’ve never been particularly skilled at walking through crowds; every stranger seems like a potential landmine, and when your balance is as bad as mine is, there is a real fear that you could miss a step or drag a foot and end up causing yourself and others to fall like a chain of dominos. But thankfully, I didn’t hurt the girl. She was just nudged, and I could tell, immediately, that she thought I had intentionally tried to bump into her.
And obviously, I was in a particularly great mood, and in no way did I want to cause any trouble. “I’m so sorry,” I said.
She was a petite, blonde-haired white girl, around twenty-two or twenty-three years old, and she’d obviously had a little too much to drink. “No, you’re not.” She was standing next to a young white guy wearing a polo with an upturned collar. “He bumped me,” she told him.
“No, look, I’m sorry,” I said. “I’m clumsy. I’m disabled, and I’m not really great at walking around crowds.”
She rolled her eyes and laughed. “No, you’re a liar.”
“No, no, I have cerebral palsy. I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to bump into you,” I said.
We were standing only two feet apart, and she reached over and grabbed me by the neckline of my shirt. “You’re a liar. You don’t have cerebral palsy,” she spat. And then, with her hand still holding my shirt, she shoved me as hard as she could, and suddenly, I was on my back, surrounded by a few dozen people on the dance floor, pointing and laughing (which is what most people do when someone falls flat on their back in the middle of a crowded dance floor).
Within seconds, though, two people hoisted me to my feet, and I stood, once again, face-to-face with this girl. “You need to leave this place right now,” I said. “Leave.” And before she could even muster a response, two security guards walked over to her and escorted her out.
Her friend, the guy in the polo shirt, didn’t follow her. “I can’t believe she did that,” he said.
“It’s okay. It happens.”
“You don’t understand,” he said. “My brother has cerebral palsy. I’m so sorry she did that.”
“Don’t worry about it. I fall all the time. I’m made of rubber,” I said.
*****
According to a 2008 study by the British Journal of Learning Support, nearly 25% of students, at some point, are the victims of bullying; among kids who live with physical or developmental disabilities, the number is closer to 60%. Other studies have suggested that disabled children are two to three times more likely to be chronically bullied, and in a “landmark” study conducted in 1994, researchers found that children with conditions like cerebral palsy were “more likely to be called names and aggressively excluded from social activities.”
Last September, 11-year-old Mitchell Wilson, who suffered from muscular dystrophy, committed suicide after a group of kids beat him to the ground, smashed out some of teeth, and stole his iPhone. Mitchell suffocated himself to death.
Mitchell Wilson
My heart aches for Mitchell and his family, because I know, first-hand, what it feels like to be bullied as a child because you walk differently or move more slowly than other kids.
Whenever this happened to me, whenever I felt sorry for myself or wondered why, existentially, I was born with a disability, my father would tell me, “Everyone has a disability. You’re fortunate, in many ways, because most people can see yours. Sometimes, it’s even more difficult for people who suffer from things that you can’t see.”
It’s advice that has carried me through life. It’s made me stronger. It’s made me more resilient, and I think it’s made me more understanding of those who think it’s funny to bully and humiliate the physically and mentally disabled– the notion that they too must be suffering from something, something so pernicious that they feel the need to hurt and humiliate people simply because they were born with a condition over which they have no control.
*****
I am 29 years old now, and even today, I still am sometimes ridiculed and bullied by strangers. I won’t pretend that it doesn’t bother me; of course it does. But at this point in my life, I’ve shaken off the last bit of self-pity that I may have ever possessed as a child. The girl at the Blue Nile, she didn’t upset me personally. I’ve learned, through time, to be headstrong and to understand that the problem belonged exclusively to her. Still, when things like this happen to me (and they still do, more frequently than even my closest friends and family may imagine), I’m not bothered because I feel any sense of embarrassment or shame. At my age, when you’ve fallen in public as often as I have, you tend to develop an almost matter-of-factness about the whole thing. I’m bothered because I know that if a person is willing to make fun of me for my disability, to call me a liar and throw me on the ground, then they’re also capable of doing the same thing to people who are much more vulnerable than I am.
*****
I am who I am, and I have just as much of a right to share my perspective and my story as anyone else. If you think that I write about these issues in order to garner sympathy, then I seriously feel sorry for you. During the last year, one outspoken member of my hometown has publicly claimed on the Internet that I deserve to be labeled a “gimp” because I write about my disability to drum up sympathy.
I am not, have not, and have never written about my disability for sympathy. This is my life; it’s sometimes a big part of my life; it’s informed my opinions on certain issues. And now that I am adult, I feel more obligated than ever to share my perspective, to raise awareness, and to stand up to those bullies who think it’s perfectly acceptable to shove kids onto the ground, literally or figuratively, simply because they walk or talk differently.
The same person who has called me a “gimp” has also altered photos of me to make it appear as if I am wheelchair-bound. I would submit to him and to others who may think like him: The men and women, the boys and girls who must navigate through life in a wheelchair possess more courage, more strength, more integrity, and more compassion than anyone who would ever attempt to use a wheelchair as a symbol of inferiority or ridicule. And whenever you do something like this, whenever you encourage someone who believes this is perfectly acceptable, you are contributing to a culture of hatred and bigotry; you are endorsing a climate of intolerance that makes kids like Mitchell Wilson feel there’s no way out, that no matter what a kid like him could do in his life– graduate from college or become a doctor or a lawyer or a physicist– he’ll always be nothing more than a “gimp” in want of sympathy.
But kids like Mitchell remind me of my special obligation to stand up to bullies. Sure, sometimes, they may knock me down, but with a little help from my friends, I’ll always be back on my feet in seconds.
