Skip to content

Archive for February, 2011

Feb 28

1 Comment

Simple Answers to Simple Questions

Q: When the local government fires someone and then presses charges against them for theft, how is this reported in the yearly audit?

A: Regardless of the rank or the responsibilities of the employee and regardless of the amount of money allegedly stolen, a qualified and professional auditor would include alleged or actual theft in their findings. Theft of public money is, perhaps, the most clear-cut example of government fraud, and a good auditor would cite it as such, even if the crime is only still alleged.

Q: So, how does the legislative auditor respond?

A: They have a ranking system. If someone who worked for the local government, in any capacity, stole or has been accused of stealing taxpayer dollars, the legislative auditor rightfully recognizes it as a comment on “fraud or abuse,” and they rank the audit a “D.” Any audit submitted to the legislative auditor that includes “comments on fraud and abuse” is given the same ranking.

Q: So even if a local government had their “cleanest” audit ever, they’d still receive a D rank if they charged an employee with stealing?

A: Yes. It’s a serious charge, regardless of the amount, and thankfully, it is taken seriously. Chances are, if your local government is reporting allegations or incidents of theft instead of attempting to cover them up or shield them from view, they don’t care about rankings: They care about open, honest, and transparent reporting, and they value a fair and accurate assessment, audit, and evaluation.

Q: Is this entire post just some thinly-veiled response?

A: Of course not. There’s no one in my community who consistently, obsessively, and maliciously misrepresents the truth. No rational person would ever blame the theft of taxpayer money alleged against a former employee with the people who actually exposed the alleged crime and immediately reported it to multiple agencies. The only reason anyone would attempt to do something like that is if they harbored some sort of bizarre vendetta and if they had absolutely no regard for the facts.

Feb 27

4 Comments

AlexCenla: The Great Wall of Alexandria

Yesterday, friend and fellow local blogger AlexCenla published his take on Alexandria’s recent efforts to attract commercial development to the Hodges Stockyard property in the Lower Third neighborhood. Although I disagree with many if not all of AlexCenla’s assumptions and conclusions, I liked his central metaphor: Interstate 49 as “The Great Wall of Alexandria.”

Hindsight, as they say, is always 20/20, and today, many locals wonder whether or not it was a good idea to build I-49 directly through the center of Alexandria. Although it’s been nearly 15 years since the Interstate first opened in Alexandria, I think the jury is still out. The decision to build the Interstate directly through Alexandria, instead of outside of the city limits, was a long-term planning strategy that carried several short-term challenges, many of which we continue to address. As AlexCenla implies, the Interstate has created a series of connectivity issues within Alexandria’s inner-core. It dead-ended many city streets, and it resulted in the demolition of a number of homes and businesses, many of which, unfortunately, were historic.

Last October, the City of New Orleans received a $2 million grant to study the feasibility of tearing down a portion of Interstate 10. Quoting:

Construction in the 1960s of the elevated interstate, particularly the stretch that towers over North Claiborne Avenue, has been blamed for cleaving a wide swath of once-thriving residential and commercial communities and forcing scores of businesses owned by African-American entrepreneurs to shut down.

Amid looming maintenance expenses and a new national focus on urban renewal, experts have suggested removing the Claiborne Expressway from the Pontchartrain Expressway to Elysian Fields Avenue. Traffic would be diverted on surface streets or along Interstate 610.

For some, it may be easy to draw parallels between the issues facing New Orleans and Alexandria, but I think there are some critical differences. First, although Interstate 49 resulted in the destruction of several properties, its footprint is still remarkably small. Second, while I-49 may have created certain connectivity problems, it also, believe it or not, improved connectivity within the City. (For example, today, because of the Interstate, you can get from Downtown Alexandria to the Alexandria Mall complex in less than three minutes). Third, unlike New Orleans, it’s impossible to simply reroute traffic onto another Interstate or inner-loop. But most importantly, with only a handful of exceptions, the Interstate in Alexandria cannot be blamed for stifling development or dramatically shifting development patterns. Alexandria had been sprawling for over forty years, decades before the right-of-way for the Interstate had even been acquired. One could argue the Interstate may have exacerbated those trends, but it did not create them.

One could also argue that if the Interstate had been built outside of the city limits, it would have exacerbated sprawl even more. That is a critical point. In many ways, I-49 actually increased the visibility of Alexandria’s inner-core and downtown.

It is also important to consider this: Most major American cities have an Interstate system that directly bisect them, including Shreveport, Baton Rouge, and New Orleans. Sure, in some cases, these systems were planned poorly, and now, many cities are having to correct those mistakes (the “Big Dig” in Boston is perhaps the most famous example). Regardless, over the last several decades, American cities have learned to adapt to the Interstate, and considering Alexandria has the “newest” Interstate in the country, it is probably far too early to make a final determination.

I like and respect AlexCenla, but I think he misses the mark about the viability of Lower Third. He uses this map to illustrate his point:

He asserts that the Great Wall of Alexandria, along with the Red River, chokes off the neighborhood, claiming that there is no easy access. Well, that is not entirely true. Actually, the neighborhood, arguably, has the best Interstate access in the City. Consider this instead:

The neighborhood is located on Louisiana Highway One. It is accessible from the Pineville Expressway, the Downtown Alexandria exit, the Broadway exit, and Sugarhouse Road (with plans for a future extension). AlexCenla writes:

Any corporation planner will see that traffic access to the area is minimal at best. Would you place a store in this area that even required  a medium flow of traffic?

The river is a wall. The interstate is a wall. Access is severely limited.

Population is small.

Add it up and what do you get?

So, obviously, I disagree with AlexCenla that “traffic access to the area is minimal at best.” The neighborhood may have its own internal connectivity problems, but it’s easily accessible from multiple points. Also, the neighborhood’s population is not small; it’s actually one of the largest neighborhoods in the entire city. Importantly, during the last decade, it has grown in population, and developers have taken notice. Last year, a national retailer opened on Lower Third Street, and right now, there are construction crews on the ground, putting the finishing touches on a multi-million dollar, gated, moderate-income apartment community.

Its access to the Red River is not a liability; it’s an asset.

The issues confronting Lower Third have less to do with population or access; it’s about perception and capacity. It is a critically important and strategically located part of Alexandria, and there is ample reason to believe in believe in its potential and champion its redevelopment and renaissance.

Feb 25

10 Comments

New Format

CenLamar’s Word Cloud, February 2011

Welcome to the revamped CenLamar.com.

The changes I’ve made are more than aesthetic, I promise.

The website is more interactive and better organized, and for better or worse, now, you can rank the quality of posts and comments. It’s also much easier to subscribe to the site, and I’ve created a “Best of CenLamar” section, which features the most popular posts during the last five years.

In the next few weeks, you’ll notice there are now four different types of posts: a standard, an aside, a link, and a gallery. And you’ll also notice that the banner image may change with each post (I’ll try to keep this to a minimum, though).

More changes are in store.

I will completely revamp the blogroll, which has remained the same for nearly three years. If you know of a website I should add, feel free to make a suggestion.

So continue to stay tuned, and thanks, in advance, for your patience.

Feb 25

evolution
3 Comments

Louisiana Teenager Champions Repeal of Anti-Science Louisiana “Science Education” Act

Exhibit A: Pro-science propaganda cleverly marketed to our innocent children.

Kudos to Zack Kopplin, the Baton Rouge Magnet High School student (and publisher of the website www.repealcreationism.com) who has made statewide news during the last few weeks for his outspoken advocacy for the repeal of the so-called Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA).

Oyster at The Lens wrote a must-read on the young Mr. Kopplin’s efforts back on February 8th. A few days ago, Kopplin was also featured in a column on The Huffington Post, which called him a “profile in (evolutionary) courage.”

In 2008, Governor Bobby Jindal, the proud owner of a Biology degree from Brown University, signed into law a piece of legislation aimed at undermining science education in Louisiana, the ironically-named Louisiana Science Education Act. The bill enables Louisiana educators to introduce religiously-based creation stories as a supplement to actual science, with the pretense that it’s somehow encouraging a more rigorous discussion.

Jindal’s decision was roundly criticized by “every scientific organization that has voiced a position on it, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science,” and Governor Jindal’s own college genetics professor, who urged his former student to reject the legislation. From John Timmer of Ars Technica:

Jindal, who was a biology major during his time at Brown University, even received a veto plea from his former genetics professor. “Without evolution, modern biology, including medicine and biotechnology, wouldn’t make sense,” Professor Arthur Landy wrote. “I hope he [Jindal] doesn’t do anything that would hold back the next generation of Louisiana’s doctors.”

Mr. Timmer and the Louisiana Coalition for Science also allege that Jindal’s bill was actually crafted, in large part, by a Seattle-based religious think-tank that focuses on promoting intelligent design. Blogger Barbara Forrest elaborates:

Louisiana has become the latest target of the Discovery Institute, the Seattle think tank whose “Wedge Strategy” for getting intelligent design (ID) creationism into public school science classes was thoroughly discredited in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District (2005). The Discovery Institute has teamed up with the LA Family Forum, the Louisiana affiliate of Focus on the Family, to promote a stealth creationism bill in the guise of “academic freedom” legislation. The bill sailed through the Louisiana legislature and now awaits action by Gov. Bobby Jindal.

….

The bill was sponsored by Sen. Ben Nevers (Bogalusa, LA), who has a history of promoting creationist legislation. In 2003, he introduced his unsuccessful HCR 50(pdf), which encouraged school systems to “refrain from purchasing textbooks that do not present a balanced view of the various theories relative to the origin of life but rather refer to one theory as proven fact.” Like SB 733, this measure was also a stealth creationist bill that would ostensibly promote “critical thinking.”

Nevers introduced SB 733 on behalf of the LA Family Forum (LFF), the Louisiana affiliate of Focus on the Family. However, the fact that this bill is the fruit of the collaboration between the LFF and the Discovery Institute (DI), a Seattle think tank that serves as command center of the ID creationist movement, gives this bill national implications. Virtually every significant creationism outbreak in the United States for almost the last decade has been the product of DI’s aggressive execution of its “Wedge Strategy” for getting ID into public school science classes.

Ms. Forrest believes the Louisiana Family Forum is the most powerful political organization in the entire state. I strongly believe something shady is going on with the Louisiana Family Forum, and I still wonder why Roger Villere, the Chairman of the Louisiana Republican Party, doled out over $20,000 to an unregistered consultation company headquartered at the home of LFF leader Dan Richey, during Villere’s race for Lieutenant Governor. Mr. Richey’s endorsement of Roger Villere was reported as legitimate news by New Orleans City Business.

The Chairman of the Discovery Institute is Bruce Chapman, and last August, he published an endorsement of Jindal’s anti-science “science education” act in The American Spectator. Chapman’s slick. Instead of focusing on those who oppose the legislation for the way in which it undermines scientific education, Chapman attempts to convince readers that “intelligent design” is somehow a scientific theory (it is not) by chastising a Livingston Parish official who suggested a full replacement of evolution education with creationism stories; Mr. Chapman and the Discovery Institute, despite their clever framing, are, in fact, promoting and advancing a conservative Christian agenda. It actually has almost nothing to do with science.

From Nina Shapiro of Seattle Weekly:

Yet the Discovery Institute as an organization didn’t get involved in the issue in order to solve the mysteries of the universe. Chapman is up front about having a social and political agenda. He sees design intelligence as a way to combat the growing reliance on genetic explanations for human behavior and what he sees as an undermining of personal responsibility. As an example of this phenomenon, Chapman cites the infamous ‘Twinkie defense’ used by a murder defendant claiming his sugar high made him do it. Others associated with the institute take a bigger leap of logic to argue that welfare, as currently dispensed, is a misguided consequence of the Darwinian outlook. ‘If you see human beings as nothing but matter and motion, than [sic] all you do is treat them like mouths to feed,’ says Jay Richards, program director for the institutes Center for Science and Culture. ‘If they’re more than that, you treat the whole person,’ he argues, which would mean looking at such things as family structure and the role of moral and religious values in their lives. Do you really have to attack a whole branch of science in order to counter liberal views on welfare? The Discovery Institute folk think they do. ‘Unless you get the science right,’ Chapman says, ‘it’s very hard to contend with the other arguments.

And you can’t forget this:

In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues “demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions”,[8][10][12] and the institute’s manifesto, the Wedge strategy,[13] describes a religious goal: to “reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions”.[14][15]

Chapman may feign indignation against someone who explicitly said what he and his organization have been implicitly attempting to enforce, but when one considers the overwhelming evidence, he’s hardly convincing.

The Discovery Institute, along with the Louisiana Family Forum, wrote, advanced, promoted, and pushed through this anti-science education bill. Make no mistake: This has nothing to do with promoting the free and open exchange of ideas; it’s about injecting a specific, religiously-based agenda in Louisiana’s science classrooms.

Exhibit B: Irreverent Gary Markstein cartoon.

Unlike Governor Jindal, I don’t have a degree in Biology; I have a degree in Religious Studies. There’s a big difference, to be sure. In Louisiana, it’s incredibly easy to learn about religion. We shouldn’t make it difficult to learn about real science, and we shouldn’t confuse or conflate science with religion.

I earnestly hope Governor Jindal will assert his intellectual honesty and integrity, his appreciation of science, his own, personal experience, and his dedication to the future of our State.

So, I join young Mr. Kopplin: Repeal this wrong-headed and anti-science act that was bought and brought to Louisiana by a very small group of radical religious conservatives.

Feb 24

2 Comments

Mike Stagg: Scare Campaign Against Moratorium Was “Hoax”

Mike Stagg, the Lafayette-based IT consultant, political activist, and previous candidate for Louisiana Governor and United States Congress, wrote a tremendously interesting letter about the fear-mongering promoted by many elected officials, industry spokespersons, and lobbyists during the aftermath of the federal moratorium against deepwater off-shore drilling, which, fortunately, was published yesterday by The Advocate. Stagg did his homework. Quoting:

The signs of the hoax can be found in the lawsuit filed to overturn the moratorium a month after it was declared.

When 37 companies joined Hornbeck International in the suit against the moratorium, it looked like an industrywide revolt against the moratorium.

The reality was that those 37 companies were owned or controlled by two prominent Louisiana Republicans, Boysie Bollinger and Gary Chouest. Bollinger controlled 21 of the companies, Chouest 16.

So, when they say 37 companies, they’re actually referring to companies “owned or controlled” by only two wealthy and well-known Republicans, both of whom have donated significant amounts of money to Governor Jindal. More from Mike Stagg:

On page four of that June 20 brief, in his “Statement of the Case” Caldwell declared: “Because of the moratorium, many thousands of Louisiana workers have lost their employment and many more are at risk of losing it in the near future.”

The only problem with the statement is that it was not true. The Louisiana Workforce Commission weekly reports on new unemployment claims never mentioned the moratorium at any time during the spring and summer of 2010 because thousands of jobs were not lost. In fact, new unemployment claims fell through most of the summer.

Kudos to Mike Stagg and to The Advocate. Last month, Louisiana Monthly published an article that backs up Stagg (republished on The Huffington Post):

In September, the U.S. Dept. of Interior revised projected Gulf job losses from the deepwater moratorium to a range of 8,000 to 12,000, from an earlier view of 23,000. Those figures compare with Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s forecast last spring that 20,000 jobs would be forfeited to the drilling ban.

Last June, GNO, Inc. saw a potential drop of 12,500 to 21,900 full-time-equivalent positions from the deepwater moratorium. The group’s January report said “to date, we have not seen evidence of these projections,” but added that since June, Louisiana has lost over 25,000 jobs statewide. “While this cannot be assumed a direct correlation — unemployment was rising around the country — we are confident that the decrease in drilling permits and the significant slow-down of the oil and gas industry had an impact on this number.”

Since the release of GNO, Inc.’s January report, however, Louisiana officials said that the state’s jobs grew in 2010 as a whole and that December’s unemployment rate of 7.2%, not seasonally adjusted, was unchanged from 2009′s end. Seasonally adjusted, the December jobless number was 8%.

Even more interesting:

Separately, Dr. Loren Scott, emeritus professor in economics at Louisiana State University, said he’s keeping an eye on job numbers in Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the coastal oil patch. In the Houma MSA, covering Lafourche and Terrebonne parishes, unemployment was 5.1%, not seasonally adjusted, in December, down from 5.7% in November and 5.3% in December 2009. Those numbers were all below prevailing national averages. Unemployment also fell in December in the Lafayette, Lake Charles and New Orleans MSAs, including Plaquemines Parish.

In other words, the MSAs which should have been most affected by the moratorium have actually experienced decreases in their unemployment rates. Mr. Stagg asks a couple of provocative questions at the conclusion of his letter:

In light of the moratorium’s failure to cripple our economy, could it be that the economic importance of the offshore oil and gas industry to the state has been vastly overstated all these years?

Who can we now trust to give us an honest answer on this?

 

Feb 23

1 Comment

Reposted: The Hotel Bentley

Because of the massive spike in interest in the Hotel Bentley as a result of the season premiere of Ghost Hunters, I am reposting this, which I originally published nearly three years ago. If you are interested in learning more about the Hotel Bentley, please visit HistoricBentley.com.

Despite its trials and tribulations throughout the past 100 years, the Hotel Bentley is arguably the most important, historic, and architecturally significant structure in the City of Alexandria. During the previous decade, the hotel has been closed more often than it has been open.

Currently, the hotel is owned by Baton Rouge entrepreneur (and Alexandria native) Bob Dean, who closed the hotel back in December of 2004.

The Hotel Bentley was constructed in 1907 by Joseph Bentley, a native of Pennsylvania who became wealthy in the lumber industry in Central Louisiana. Bentley was an eccentric fellow, and legend has it that the only reason he built the hotel is because he was turned down for a room in the former Ice House Hotel (which was subsequently destroyed by fire).

Bentley was particularly impressed by the Capitol Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas, so he tracked down the architect and asked him to design a hotel in Alexandria. Both hotels feature similarly opulent atriums, much like the Peabody in Memphis.

Joseph Bentley at the wheel.

Bentley ensured the hotel could also serve as his personal residence. He carved out a large apartment on one of the top floors and installed a personal elevator; both the apartment and the private elevator remain today.

In or around 1933, Bentley built a massive addition to his hotel, an addition which was constructed by Tudor-Ratcliffe (both families remain in the construction business to this day). It added more than 80 rooms.

During World War II, the United States military trained over a half of a million troops in the Alexandria area, and the commanders of these troops– people like Dwight Eisenhower and George S. Patton– resided for long periods of time at the Hotel Bentley, planning the now-historic Louisiana Maneuvers.

Throughout the 1950s, the hotel continued to flourish, but by the late 1960s, it was struggling. The hotel closed for business for nearly a decade, during which time it allegedly served “other purposes” for select clientèle (if you catch my drift). The owner of the hotel during this period was apparently (subsequently) locked up in jail.

Skip forward to the early 1980s: Buddy Tudor, a local developer, purchased and renovated the shuttered hotel, reopening it after millions of dollars in repairs to national acclaim in 1985. Mr. Tudor remained as owner for nearly 15 years. He sold to a group out of New Orleans, and less than a year later, they sold the hotel to Bob Dean, who retains ownership to this day.

Mr. Dean, to his credit, initially made around a million dollars in upgrades to the hotel, though he kept the hotel open for less than five years.

Today, the hotel remains shuttered, though there is good reason to believe in its renaissance. As a result of the City of Alexandria’s Downtown Hotels Initiative, the development team Hospitality Initiatives Partnership (or H.I.P.) is now planning to reopen and transform the hotel into a world-class destination.

Pictured below: The Mirror Room in the Hotel Bentley

Feb 23

Jim Clinton: “Astonishingly Good News” for Central Louisiana

Jim Clinton, the Executive Director of Cenla Advantage Partnership, has a reason to celebrate. After years of championing the need for a true community college, a recent report by the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems titled “An Assessment of Community College Needs in Central Louisiana” clearly and unequivocally demonstrates that Central Louisiana is severely underserved and desperately needs a community college.

On its surface, that may not sound like good news, but as Jim Clinton writes today on his blog, there is a reason to celebrate.

Among other things, the new report says, “Central Louisiana is the most underserved region of the state with regard to provision of community college services.” It could have said that we are one of the most underserved regions in the nation with accuracy as well.

More importantly, the report makes a series of recommendations that when implemented could change the landscape of Central Louisiana forever.

The report recommends “…creation of a technical community college in the Alexandria region.” It says that the college should be serve as the “…single front door” for community college services for students and employers. It goes on to prescribe the kinds of services that should be offered through the new entity.

A question that often arises on this subject is, “Didn’t LSUA used to be a community college?” Since LSUA’s status as a four-year institution is a relatively recent phenomenon, this is a perfectly normal question. However, the answer is “no.” LSUA was a two-year college, but it was never the kind of comprehensive community and technical institution that is envisioned by “Beyond High School” or in the new recommendations.  A comprehensive community and technical college in Central Louisiana is a game-changer for us, a landmark event.

It fills a gaping hole in Central Louisiana and it does so within a system that is constitutionally mandated to provide such services. As we look at building a real knowledge platform for the citizens, businesses and institutions of Central Louisiana, the addition of the technical community college is exactly what is called for at this point in our history.

It is astonishingly good news for the region. As “Beyond High School” demonstrated, the greatest opportunity for job creation in the region for the next decade will be in jobs requiring more than a high school education and less than a four-year diploma. It is specifically that arena in which the region is so underserved, and it is specifically that market that the new institution will serve.

The result will be investment, jobs, higher levels of knowledge, higher levels of pay, and new wealth creation for our region.

And here’s what is most promising (bold mine):

The report will now go on to the Louisiana Board of Regents for its consideration. Because of the way the report recommends using existing institutional resources to pave the way on implementation, we could be looking forward to the commencement of classes before the year is out.

Kudos to Mr. Clinton and to all of the local leaders who have championed this project. He’s right: This is astonishingly good news.

Feb 23

Set Your DVR: Tonight’s Ghost Hunters Is All About Alexandria

Just a quick reminder: The season premiere of Ghost Hunters airs tonight on the Syfy Channel: 8PM CST and then again at 10PM CST.

And the episode, titled “Haunted Town,” is exclusively about Alexandria, Louisiana.

They visit the Hotel Bentley, Finnegans Wake, and the Diamond Grill, where, hopefully, I’ll be able to live-tweet and/or live-blog alongside Alexandria’s own Carla Ledbetter, who will be reporting for The Washington Times.

Check it out:

Feb 23

3 Comments

The Diamond Grill Is Haunted, Y’all…

The season premiere of the Syfy show Ghost Hunters airs at 8PM. And it’s all about Alexandria! The episode is titled “Haunted Town.”

:: Cough, cough ::

Fair warning: This video is probably NOT SAFE FOR WORK; from South Park:

(Sorry, I couldn’t help myself).

In all seriousness, kudos to the incredible team at Ghost Hunters for showcasing our fine town, albeit unconventionally. They all believed in Alexandria, and even though “I ain’t ‘fraid of no ghosts,” I thank them for telling an awesome part of our city’s history.

Tune in. I’ll be live-tweeting from the haunted Diamond Grill.

Feb 21

5 Comments

Blogs Are Dying? Say What?

On Saturday in Shreveport, I spoke before the 2011 class of the New Leaders Council- Louisiana about online political activism and the role and influence of the blogosphere. If you read this site, you’re probably not too surprised that I have a few things to share about the blogosphere, and I thank the NLC-Louisiana fellows for hearing me out.

Today, The New York Times ran an article about the waning popularity of blogs, suggesting that social networking websites like Facebook and Twitter are eclipsing blogs and becoming the preferred platforms for connecting with others to share information, videos, and opinions.

Blogs went largely unchallenged until Facebook reshaped consumer behavior with its all-purpose hub for posting everything social. Twitter, which allows messages of no longer than 140 characters, also contributed to the upheaval.

No longer did Internet users need a blog to connect with the world. They could instead post quick updates to complain about the weather, link to articles that infuriated them, comment on news events, share photos or promote some cause — all the things a blog was intended to do.

On the surface, this seems relatively obvious and intuitive. During my presentation on Saturday, I spoke about the meteoric rise of Facebook. I joined Facebook when it was still called The Facebook; my college was one of the first dozen or so that Facebook targeted. Facebook officially launched in February of 2004; I’m not entirely certain, but I think I joined in May. Within a few weeks, it seemed like nearly everyone at Rice was on Facebook, even if most of us weren’t quite sure what the benefits were.

Facebook is now the most popular and most visited website on the internet: over 500 million users, 70% of whom live outside of the United States. As has been exhaustively reported, Facebook also played a key role in the recent revolution in Egypt. I used this photo during my presentation on Saturday as an illustration:

Today, we learned:

A man in Egypt has named his newborn daughter “Facebook” in honor of the role the social media network played in bringing about a revolution, according to a new report.

You have to wonder what Mark Zuckerberg thinks about all of this. During the last few months, he’s been the subject of a hugely successful and award-winning movie, The Social Network; he was named Time Magazine’s Person of the Year, and now, his website is, in part, being credited with facilitating a revolution in Egypt– a revolution that, right now, appears to have inspired a ripple effect across the Middle East. Today, there is a baby girl in Egypt named Facebook, and for the rest of her life, she will remind people of the role of a social networking website in toppling a dictator.

It’s incredible.

But still, The New York Times missed the mark today. The blogosphere is not waning. It’s adapting to rapid changes in social networking, and that’s a good thing. Again, from The Times:

“If you’re looking for substantive conversation, you turn to blogs,” Ms. Camahort Page said. “You aren’t going to find it on Facebook, and you aren’t going to find it in 140 characters on Twitter.”

Lee Rainie, director of the Internet and American Life Project, says that blogging is not so much dying as shifting with the times. Entrepreneurs have taken some of the features popularized by blogging and weaved them into other kinds of services.

“The act of telling your story and sharing part of your life with somebody is alive and well — even more so than at the dawn of blogging,” Mr. Rainie said. “It’s just morphing onto other platforms.”

I disagree with Ms. Camahort Page: It is possible to find a substantive conversation on Facebook and even on Twitter, though it’s not always easy. Lee Rainie is more on target.

Caitlin Dickson of The Atlantic responded to The Times in a post titled “Blogging’s Not Dead, Says Bloggers.”

Here’s my take:

The blogosphere is, thankfully, becoming more mature and more professional. It shouldn’t be surprising that many hobbyist bloggers are transitioning to social networking platforms. The truth is, these people are still “blogging,” in the broadest sense of the term; they’re just moving their base of operations. Facebook has a built-in audience; it’s not as easy to build a dedicated readership on your own.

But there will always be a blogosphere, and the recent proliferation of social networking websites can only strengthen the visibility and the credibility of the professional blogosphere. I agree with blogger Matt Schuler:

If you have something that can fit in 140 characters or less, share it on Twitter and Facebook.  But if you have a long, complete thought that won’t fit then write it out.  You can post the link on your social networks.

And guess what?

If used correctly, social networks can actually augment a blog’s readership, traffic, visibility, and credibility. Some suggest that The Times is quick to dismiss the blogosphere because of their own institutional bias against what they may perceive as a threat to traditional media. Maybe so. But more than likely, they’re still just behind the times (Pardon the pun).

Feb 21

1 Comment

Donkey Depression

Earlier this month, Jeremy Alford, who, in my opinion, is one of the best and most thorough journalists in Louisiana, published an article for The Independently Weekly titled “Donkey Desperation.” I have shamelessly co-opted his headline; I’m also a fan of alliterations. Mr. Alford’s article detailed the recent history and the plight of the Louisiana Democratic Party; it’s a great primer for anyone interested in Louisiana politics, whether you’re conservative, liberal, or somewhere in between.

A couple of days after Mr. Alford’s article was published, Attorney General Buddy Caldwell announced that he was switching to the Republican Party. As a result of Caldwell’s defection, there is only one Democrat holding a statewide elected office, United States Senator Mary Landrieu, and, of course, there’s only one Louisiana Democrat serving in Congress, Cedric Richmond of LA-02.

During the last couple of months, the Louisiana Republican Party has been the beneficiary of a number of other high-profile defections, including Noble Ellington and John Alario. During his race for Louisiana Senate in 2007, John Alario told The Times-Picayune that Roger Villere, the Chairman of the Louisiana Republican Party, was “more interested in bigotry than he is with issues in the election and getting votes.” Villere and his party attempted to discredit and defeat Mr. Alario by painting him as some sort of Italian mafioso; they even launched a website titled “The Alarios,” which mimicked the HBO show The Sopranos. Today, Mr. Alario is a member of the Republican Party, and the man he once claimed was “more interested in bigotry” is the chairman of his state party, proving, once again, that politics does make for strange bedfellows.

Yesterday, Jonathan Perry beat Nathan Granger in a special election for Louisiana Senate, after Nick Gautreaux, a Democrat, abandoned the seat in order to become Commissioner of Motor Vehicles. From the Associated Press (bold mine):

A Republican candidate late Saturday won a special election for a Louisiana state Senate seat, according to unofficial returns, a result that if certified would give the GOP control of the Senate for the first time since Reconstruction.

The Louisiana Secretary of State’s office reported on its website that Republican state Rep. Jonathan Perry narrowly defeated Democrat Nathan Granger in the race to fill a vacant state Senate seat. Unofficial returns show Perry receiving 52 percent of the vote to Granger’s 48 percent, with all 106 precincts reporting.

Perry’s victory is yet another setback for the Louisiana Democratic Party, though it is largely symbolic.

Still, despite what some pundits may say, these recent events may offer the Louisiana Democratic Party the first opportunity in at least a decade to truly define itself, its mission, and its priorities. More importantly, it can provide Louisiana Democrats with the ability to finally become the cohesive voice of the opposition, staking out clear distinctions in policies and priorities from the Republican-controlled legislature and the Republican Governor.

If they seek to survive, they should embrace the role and the responsibilities of the vocal minority.

The recent defections of high-profile elected officials from the Democratic Party and to the Republican Party have very little to do with a real ideological shift: They were all calculated moves, decisions based on politics and elections and not policy or governance. Ultimately, these defections do not reflect a fundamental change in state government, however it may be framed against the backdrop of history; it’s just a campaign strategy: If you can’t beat them, join them.

And for those elected officials, right now, that may be true. They probably like their jobs, and they probably felt as if they could, potentially, face the might of an organized and well-funded Republican Party and a Republican Governor with nearly $10 million in the bank, months before he even officially launches a re-election campaign in full-force.

Ironically, that’s why, in many ways, these defections may actually be good for the Louisiana Democratic Party. On a very basic level, the defections have purged the party of elected officials who never actually supported it. That’s a good thing.

The truth is this:

The Louisiana Democratic Party has been in decline since at least 2000, the year Edwin Edwards was convicted and sentenced to prison. Edwards, the four-term Democratic Governor, had been the standard-bearer of the party, and his conviction not only undermined his own legacy as Governor, it also undermined and fractured the Louisiana Democratic Party. Regardless of whether or not Edwards’s sentence was fair or whether or not the prosecution and the judge were overly zealous, the conviction of Edwin Edwards was a massive blow to Louisiana Democrats. Nearly every single prominent politician in Louisiana was, in some way, connected to the four-term governor, but for those who also shared Edwards’s party affiliation, it was all-too-easy for Republicans to imply some sort of guilt by association.

And it was difficult for Louisiana Democrats to respond, particularly those whose political resumes were tied to Edwards.

So, in response, Louisiana Democrats attempted to market themselves “John Breaux Democrats.” John Breaux, the Democratic U.S. Senator from Crowley, would become the new standard-bearer for the party. They sought to shy away from the populism of Edwards and attempted to identify their party with a particular breed of so-called “conservative Democrats.” Yellow dogs became blue dogs.

But eventually, Democratic candidates became somewhat indistinguishable from Republican candidates, and for many voters in Louisiana, the decision was between voting for the amorphous “conservative Democrat” and the actual Republican conservative. Ain’t nothing like the real thing, right?

Today, the Louisiana Democratic Party is, once again, having to confront an identity crisis. They would be making a huge mistake if they continued to build their party around “conservative Democrats,” and an even bigger mistake if they focus too heavily on retelling the story of the newly-released Edwin Edwards.

Instead, they need to borrow a page from the Louisiana Republican’s playbook: They need to become a unified opposition. They also need to exclusively focus on the biggest and most pressing challenges in the State, and they need to be willing and able to publicly challenge Republicans on the issues. Louisiana Democrats need to work together. They need to become more diverse and more reflective of the people of Louisiana. They need to set and enforce the strongest ethical standards; they need to self-impose a series of campaign finance reforms among elected members of their party. And they must rely on our young leaders across the state, because more than any other group, they will set the tone and the agenda for the next twenty years.

I’ll let you all in on a little secret: There are young Democratic leaders on all corners and pockets of our State. Most of them don’t make the news, and the vast majority of them don’t hold an elected office. But to anyone who suggests that Louisiana Democrats lack a “bench,” you should probably scratch beneath the surface a little. You may be surprised by the quality and the caliber of these young men and women, and you’d probably be more surprised to know that, despite the fact that most are not involved in government on any level, these young Louisianans are already remarkably organized and connected. For them, I believe, it’s not a question of if but a question of when.

Feb 17

7 Comments

Satire Versus Hate Speech

During the last couple of years and particularly during the last Mayor’s election, I’ve thought a lot about the differences between satire and hate speech. Famously, the late televangelist Jerry Falwell sued Larry Flynt and Hustler Magazine in the late 1980s for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress after Hustler printed a satirical ad that suggested Falwell’s first sexual experience was with his own mother. Initially, a jury rejected Falwell’s charge of libel, but agreed with him on the charges of invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress, awarding Falwell $150,000 in damages.

Flynt appealed, and the case made it all the way to the United States Supreme Court, which unanimously ruled in Flynt’s favor. At its core, the case centered on Falwell’s role as a public figure and whether or not Hustler‘s parody ad met the definition of “actual malice,” as established in the landmark case New York Times Company v. Sullivan (1964). When you’re a public figure, it’s much more difficult to prove a defamation or libel case. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove “that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity,” hence the term “actual malice.” The Sullivan case was hugely important, better safeguarding the press to challenge, criticize, and satirize elected officials and public figures.

In 1964, no one could have possibly anticipated the future ubiquity of the Internet or the ways in which today’s technology allows and empowers practically anyone with a computer and a modem the ability to share their opinions with the entire world. It’s been said before: The internet is the most important development in the history of human communication since Guttenberg’s printing press. Because of its recent emergence, we are still attempting to understand the full importance and long-term impact of the internet. In the beginning of the movie The Social Network, Mark Zuckerberg’s girlfriend tells him, “Everything on the internet is written in ink.” Although it’s not entirely true, it’s an apt and pithy metaphor, one of the best I’ve heard.

I’ve been online since I was seven years old, well before there were chat rooms or blogs. In those early days, people connected with one another through bulletin boards; it wasn’t an anarchic free-for-all, but certainly, it was unorganized, unstructured, and completely unmoderated. Most kids who were online back in the late 1980s were more interested in learning code; however, coding has never been an interest of mine. I was more interested in having a conversation with people. I spent hours posting questions on bulletin boards about religion and politics. For a kid who wasn’t always able to join my brother and my friends outside, the internet provided me with the ability to connect with a much larger world.

Five years ago, when I created this website, I never thought it would last for more than a few months. I wanted to share a few of my opinions on my hometown, and to my surprise, people actually took notice.

As anyone who knows me well can attest, I’ve never been afraid to speak my mind, even when it gets me in trouble or causes controversy. I’ve always attempted to be respectful and purposeful, but I’m definitely not perfect. Still, I know that if you’re going to dish it out, then, as the adage goes, you better be able to take it. I like to believe I’ve handled criticism with some degree of aplomb, though it hasn’t always been easy. I may have thick skin, but I’m not made of kevlar.

If you’ve read this site during the last two years, you probably know that I’ve earned the ire of a man named Greg Aymond, a lawyer and former member of the Ku Klux Klan who publishes a blog called Central LA Politics. I’ve written far too many responses to him on this blog. Some people tell me to simply ignore him completely. By even mentioning him, they say, I’m giving him exactly what he wants: attention and recognition. I can’t know what motivates someone like Greg Aymond, but again, the internet is written in ink. Greg Aymond has written about me nearly every single week for the last year, sometimes posting as many as four articles a week. When I post something on this site, within a few hours, Greg Aymond usually responds, and more often than not, he distorts my words in order to promote some ridiculous lie about me. I’ve said before, it’s sometimes disconcerting to me. Sometimes, it’s not just weird; it seems creepy and strangely obsessive, particularly when I consider the hours he’s spent changing photographs of me (and others).

Today, in response to my post about my friend and colleague Joe Page, Greg Aymond published his latest depiction of me:

He named the file “Freddy the Gimp.” He explained:

Freddy White, the the best blogger in Cenla, unofficial mouthpiece for Alexandria Mayor Jacques Roy, Publicist for the City of Alexandria who blogs on City time, our resident pinko left-winger, and ofay who has done nothing for real for Black people except mouth off, today attacked Town Talk reporter Bret McCormick and community activist Gayle Underwood for daring to exercise their freedoms of speech.

I call Freddy a gimp and place his photo in a wheelchair because he uses his disability for sympathy (no matter what he says). Freddy was probably hired by City Hall for his liberal ways and his disability. It couldn’t have been for his knowledge or experience because he had none. Many of us, including me, have disabilities, but we do not use them to further our own agendas like Freddy does.

First, obviously, I did not attack anyone’s freedom of speech rights. That’s absurd. I questioned Mr. McCormick’s editorialization, and I pointed out that Ms. Underwood has appeared on Channel Four more than anyone else outside of city government, often to express her own political views.

I’ve been called a “gimp” before, of course. The word has several different definitions, but when it’s hurled at someone with a disability, it’s intended to be an insult, an offensive slur, a word that can be hurtful and dehumanizing. Still, I’ve grown accustomed to Mr. Aymond’s spiteful and blindly hateful name-calling. I would never expect him to understand how the word “gimp” can be an instrument of hatred or how profoundly painful it can be for a ten-year-old boy with cerebral palsy or a sixteen-year-old girl with muscular dystrophy. I know Mr. Aymond intends to be hurtful; likely, he believes that attacking me for being disabled is his best line of attack. It’s pathetic.

Unlike Mr. Aymond, I’ve lived with a disability for my entire life. It does not and has never defined my identity, but it certainly helps inform it. How could it not? Although I don’t want to get into some sort of ad hominem attack, I know this: Today, even for someone confined to a wheelchair, it is possible to adapt; it is possible to live a normal life- to go to school, to make close friends, to become gainfully employed, to get married, and to have kids. But when you’re paralyzed by hatred and anger, you suffer from a disability that is far more devastating than anything else.

Mr. Aymond may claim that he’s simply being satirical, playful; if pressed, he’d probably argue that he has the right to satirize me because he probably thinks of me as a public figure. But make no mistake: This is not satire. It is not playful criticism. It is intended to be personal; it is intended to inflict pain; it is intended to dehumanize me, to reduce me to a slur; and it is intended to discredit my intellect, to make me appear as nothing more than an untalented, unqualified, and unintelligent opportunist who has coasted through life because of the sympathy of others. This isn’t satire; it’s hate speech.

Feb 17

1 Comment

Go Joe!

To my friend and colleague Joe Page, a former City Councilman and one of the most decent, intelligent, and fair-minded people I have ever encountered:

There aren’t many people in the City of Alexandria, Louisiana who have dedicated their entire professional career to public service.

Joe Page is, without any doubt, an exceptional leader and public servant. He’s soft-spoken man who possesses a deep and abiding belief in his own community. Yesterday, at the conclusion of a press briefing, he spoke his mind as a citizen, and I commend him for his courage, his tenacity, and his integrity.

Like Mr. Page, I didn’t clear my remarks with anyone. I speak as a taxpaying citizen of the Great City of Alexandria.

Yet, somehow, without any attribution, this is what Town Talk reporter Bret McCormick writes about Mr. Page’s statements:

His speech raises questions about what should and shouldn’t be aired over Channel 4, which by law is supposed to be prohibited from broadcasting political speech.

I’ve met Bret McCormick a handful of times. Like me, Bret’s also a blogger who operates his own personal website on the side, though, unlike Bret, I’d never exploit his own personal website for a story.

I am certain I will catch some criticism for saying this, but again, Bret reported Mr. Page’s “speech raises questions about what should and shouldn’t be aired over Channel Four.” Who raised those questions? Where were they raised?

Mr. Page has just as much of a right to express his opinion as Gayle Underwood, a woman who speaks on camera in almost every publicly-televised meeting, and no one would ever dispute her right.

Except, of course, for Gayle Underwood.

Gayle Underwood said, on G. Aymond’s blog:
If Mr. Page is using the channel 4 as a private citzen (sic) does this mean that if a citzen in attendance at the briefing should also give them the right to speak or ask a question? Would like a written answer to this for the Adminstration (sic).They have my address and all phone numbers. 

Gayle, THIS IS NOT ANY TYPE OF OFFICIAL RESPONSE, but for crying out loud, you’re on Government Access Television more than anyone else outside of city government. Anyone and everyone who pays attention to city government has heard from you. (And you know, Gayle, I don’t care if I sound like a spoiled or entitled brat, because that is not who I am: But a couple of years ago, during a public meeting, I remember a wonderful and kind elderly woman addressing the audience about the problems associated with slum lords. The woman never singled anyone out or named names, but I will always remember your bizarre reaction, just as I will always remember your strange reaction to a heartfelt e-mail I sent to you).

Gotta love Alexandria.

Thank God we have people like Joe Page.

Feb 9

Consensus

Last week, the US Census Bureau released the 2010 numbers for the State of Louisiana. Among other things, we learned that Alexandria, Pineville, and Rapides Parish all experienced population gains, which is positive news for our community. From the Census Bureau’s official press release:

Data for Louisiana show that the five most populous incorporated places and their 2010 Census counts are New Orleans, 343,829; Baton Rouge, 229,493; Shreveport, 199,311; Lafayette, 120,623; and Lake Charles, 71,993. New Orleans decreased by 29.1 percent since the 2000 Census. Baton Rouge grew by 0.7 percent, Shreveport decreased by 0.4 percent, Lafayette grew by 9.4 percent and Lake Charles grew by 0.3 percent.

The largest parish is East Baton Rouge with a population of 440,171. Its population grew by 6.6 percent since 2000. The other parishes in the top five include Jefferson, with a population of 432,552 (decrease of 5.0 percent); Orleans, population of 343,829 (decrease of 29.1 percent); Caddo, population of 254,969 (increase of 1.1 percent); and St. Tammany, population of 233,740 (increase of 22.2 percent).

For readers from Central Louisiana, here’s what the press release leaves out: Rapides Parish grew by nearly 4.2%; Pineville grew by nearly 5.3%, and Alexandria grew by nearly 3.0%. Among cities in Louisiana with populations over 45,000 people, Alexandria is one of the small few to post population growth. In all of Northern and Central Louisiana, only Bossier City outpaced its growth as a major city.

Please forgive all of the statistics, but they’re important for a few reasons.

Yesterday, The Town Talk, in a seemingly innocuous editorial, opined about the importance of reaching the 50,000 population threshold, noting that both Monroe and Alexandria had failed to do so in the 2010 Census. It’s slightly disingenuous to compare Monroe to Alexandria or Alexandria to Monroe. While Alexandria grew over the last ten years by nearly 3.0%, Monroe lost over 8.0% of its population. To be sure, Monroe has announced plans to challenge the results, but either way, clearly, Monroe has experienced a significant population loss during the last decade, while Alexandria has grown.

To put it in some perspective, according to the 2000 Census:

Monroe: 53,107

Alexandria: 46,342

Difference: 6,759+ Monroe

And the 2010 Census:

Monroe: 48,815

Alexandria: 47,723

Difference: 1,092+ Monroe

Put another way, during the last decade, Monroe has lost 4,292 people, while Alexandria has gained 1,381 people. At this pace, Alexandria could be larger than Monroe in less than three years.

Don’t get me wrong, though: I’m not disparaging the fine people of Monroe. Ultimately, in Louisiana, we’re all in the same boat. The economic vitality of Monroe affects our entire State, and as the hub of two major Louisiana universities, Monroe’s success also affects our State’s future.

Still, it’s unfair to compare a growing city that hasn’t had a population over 50,000 people in decades with a city that recently shrunk below the 50,000 mark for the first time in decades, which is precisely what The Town Talk did:

This is of note because the populations of Alexandria and Monroe officially have dropped below 50,000, according to just-released U.S. Census data. Alexandria has 47,723 residents, and Monroe is only slightly larger, at 48,815.

Of immediate concern is how much the figures will affect access to funding, primarily through the Community Development Block Grant program operated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Like hundreds of other cities, both Louisiana cities rely on this funding for a range of projects.

First thing, according to the US Census, Alexandria’s population did not “drop below” the 50,000 mark; it’s been below that mark for over 30 years. Louisiana Tech conducted yearly population “estimates,” which use completely different methods, and during the last couple of years, they’ve pegged the Alexandria population at over 50,000 people. But again, it’s not the same thing as the Census, which is what the editorial, ostensibly, is concerned about.

Second, The Town Talk‘s premise is ill-conceived and somewhat ironic. Yes, there may be slight increases in federal CDBG funding as a result of hitting the 50,000 threshold, but there is also a battery of federally-funded incentives exclusively available for communities between 25,000 – 49,999, including USDA commercial loan guarantees of up to $25 million. Those are also important tools, and some would argue they are more productive than any small increases in CDBG funding.

But third and most importantly, what really matters is that our region is growing. When businesses decide to locate in an area, they don’t really care about population based on arbitrarily constructed political borders; they care about the population of the MSA and the reach of the MSA’s service area. When the government, non-profits, or foundations decide to provide grant funding for a needy project, they don’t care as much about the Census as they do about how many people the project affects.

Feb 4

4 Comments

Senor Vitter y Senor Stonecipher

From the USA Today (bold mine):

Four of the eight states gaining House seats owe roughly half or more of their population gains over the last decade to Hispanics. They include Texas, which picks up four seats; Florida, which will add two seats; and Arizona and Nevada, picking up one seat apiece.

In Georgia and Washington state, which also gain one seat each, Hispanics combined with other minority groups accounted for a majority of their growth since 2000.

Among states losing House seats, Louisiana and New Jersey each would have posted a net population loss, and Michigan would have sustained bigger declines, if it hadn’t been for Hispanic growth. Latinos also made up roughly 60% or more of the growth in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Iowa and Massachusetts— which each lose a seat — raising questions as to whether remaining districts in those states will need to accommodate emerging Hispanic voting blocs.

As you will probably recall, in late 2009, Senator Vitter led an effort to require that the 2010 Census only count United States citizens, which was soundly rejected and roundly criticized. Mr. Vitter pointed to analysis conducted by Shreveport-based pollster Eliot Stonecipher. T-P:

Louisiana, according to Vitter and Stonecipher, stands to lose a congressional district under the 2010 reapportionment unless the rules are redrawn to exclude noncitizens, a process that would depend on a hard count of the noncitizen population from the census.

In fairness to Mr. Stonecipher, he later criticized Senator Vitter’s attempt to place a citizenship question in the Census short form, and Mr. Vitter subsequently obliged and removed the language from his amendment.

Still, considering all of the indignation about potentially counting illegal immigrants and considering Mr. Vitter’s controversial commercial during last year’s Senate election (which featured a group of menacing-looking Hispanic actors crossing the border into the United States, only to be greeted with oversized checks from Democrats), it’s, at the very least, slightly ironic that the only reason Louisiana gained in population was because of Hispanic growth. Yes, we are still losing a Congressional seat, but so are several other states that also experienced huge increases in their Hispanic populations.

To our new Hispanic residents:

Welcome to the Great State of Louisiana. We are a diverse state with a rich history and deep ties to Spain, Latin America, and the Caribbean. We are happy you have decided to call Louisiana home. In Louisiana, we know diversity enriches our culture.

To be sure, we are not immune to divisiveness or racism by any means. It’s a shameful part of our past, and it would be foolish for us to overlook or excuse this. Less than twenty years ago, a former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan managed to receive over 38% of the vote for Governor.

Still, the vast majority of Louisianans are reasonable, fair-minded, good people. We know that you didn’t decide to adopt Louisiana because we’re a rich state. As you’ve probably gathered, there’s a ton of work that needs to be done here. Our coastline is evaporating. We’re facing a major budget shortfall, which directly threatens the quality of our education and our health care systems. We are still rebuilding from Katrina and Rita, and now, we’re also having to pick up from the BP oil disaster. Your decision to move to Louisiana, during one of the most challenging times in our modern history, is deeply appreciated. We need your time, talents, and energy, and we are thankful you’ve decided to contribute.

You may sometimes be confronted by people who mistakenly believe your presence in Louisiana threatens their livelihoods or undermines their hold on power. These people do not speak for Louisiana; they speak for themselves, out of jealousy, hated, and ignorance.

Those of us who love and celebrate Louisiana know that the very first Europeans to arrive here were from Spain, Panfilo de Narváez and, a few years later, Hernando de Soto. We know that Louisiana was once a colony of Spain, and we understand how profoundly our culture has been affected by Caribbean immigrants.

So again, welcome to Louisiana. Welcome home.