Monthly Archives: April 2012

Screen Shot 2012-04-23 at 6.16.41 AM

Bobby Jindal and the Louisiana Legislature Cower and Pander to the Radical Right on Creationism 5

by • Education, Media Studies, National News, Social Activism

When I was seventeen years old, I wrote for The Town Talk as a member of its Youth Council, a small group of would-be journalists and writers who were graciously given barrels of ink every Sunday. It gave me my training wheels and, for the first time in my life, an audience. Looking back, I’m not entirely proud of everything I wrote under their masthead (mainly my music reviews), but I’m still proud of a few things: I criticized one of my own teachers for publicly campaigning to ban the movie “Teaching Ms. Tingle” because she believed it promoted violence against teachers. Her argument was silly, and the movie was even sillier. Banning the movie from local theaters, I thought and continue to believe, was an insidious type of paternalistic censorship. I also wrote an epically long article about the politics of school uniforms, which were being touted, at the time, as a sure-fire way of reducing school violence and which also, in a way, represent an insidious type of paternalistic censorship. But one of my favorite articles that The Town Talk published was about the teaching of evolution in public schools. It ran on February 4, 2000, and it was largely written as a reaction to the decision by the Kansas State School Board, which had voted to effectively ban the teaching of evolution from public schools.

The battle in Kansas would take another seven years to resolve. Ultimately, cooler heads prevailed, and today, evolution is still taught in Kansas public school science classrooms. But in many ways, the damage was already done. Kansas’s ill-fated effort to insert religious beliefs into the science curriculum became a punching bag for the international media; it undermined the integrity and the reputation of Kansas’s education system. But perhaps most interestingly, despite the international hoopla and all of the attention given to the State of Kansas, science teachers never really heeded the mandate proscribed to them by the radical religious right.

New earth creationism is a religious belief. Evolution is a scientific theory. For decades, the radical religious right has attempted to equivocate their faith-based beliefs with science. That is, they have tried to convince legislators and school board members all over the country that their religious faith- the notion that the world was created in six days and is only 6,000 years old- should be taught in public schools as holding equal merit as science. Science, they contend, is controversial.

As a seventeen-year-old, I wrestled with this issue. I was reared in the Methodist church and brought up to respect the integrity of faith and science. Our universe, I was taught, is a complex and brilliant creation, and the more one understands that complexity and brilliance, the more one understands meaning and purpose. Surely, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Surely, God did not want to trick His entire creation by planting evidence of fossils and dinosaurs and far-away galaxies, evidence that can be verified through rigorous testing. To me- and I mean this will all due respect to those who may believe otherwise- the notion that God created science in order to fool human beings into sin borders on nihilism, that human existence, despite all of its amazing complexities, is nothing more than a joke. Here’s what I wrote as a teenager:

In my opinion, the view that evolution and religion cannot simultaneously exist is disrespectful. There are many religious scholars who vehemently believe in the theory of evolution. The story of Genesis can also be viewed as a metaphorical tale of creation. Before the world was created, time had no meaning. After all, the sun was not even created until ‘day’ four. Therefore, a ‘day,’ as referred to in Genesis, might very well be millions of years. Genesis also clearly states that Adam, the first human being, ‘was created out of the dirt of the earth.’ This is, in a sense, a very evolutionary concept. Hopefully, the incident in Kansas will prove to be isolated. As our knowledge of our history increases, one can only wish that respect for other beliefs will also increase.

I could have never predicted or imagined that a decade later the debate would continue to rage on, or that it would infect my own homestate. The new earth creationists, which have attempted to rebrand themselves under the guise of “intelligent design,” would have us believe that God is incapable of creating metaphors, yet more than willing to create an entire universe filled with complexities that are purposely intended to fool us. Either we accept a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis or we believe that we are living in a universe filled with props and decoys, like an elaborate reality TV show. Or as Shakespeare wrote:

Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.

Either the world is a mere stage, or it is a brilliant and meaningful creation. And if it’s nothing more than a stage, then Shakespeare’s right: It signifies nothing; we’re all just walking shadows. Science does not threaten our humanity; evolution does not diminish the divine. Science provides us with the tools we need to understand the nature of our existence; it empowers humanity. That’s why Pope John Paul II embraced evolution. It’s why the Dalai Lama has spent much of his life talking about the intersection of faith and science.

So, we should all be honest with one another about this: Evolution and science are only controversial to people who believe in an incredible ruse. Some of them may be smart. Some may even spend their entire lives nit-picking at science or at critiquing the nuances of the fossil record, hoping to advance the belief that any flaw is a fatal one which should destroy the entire discourse. But as smart as some of these people may seem, they are still peddling ignorance; they’re distorting science and the scientific method; they’re attempting to collapse the word “theory” into some sort of catch-all, refusing to acknowledge that, in science, the word “theory” is only reserved for the concepts that have been consistently and repeatedly verified. They read Genesis literally, and they, therefore, reflexively assume that those who recognize the validity of evolution must read Darwin’s original text literally as well, as if science supports the same sort of textual fundamentalism.

Scientists know Darwin didn’t get everything right, and in the last 153 years since the publication of On the Origin of Species, the theory of evolution has, well, evolved. That’s the nature of science; it’s not inflexibly rigid in its orthodoxy. Unlike those who espouse new earth creationism or intelligent design, science adapts to discoveries and advances; science embraces and seeks out knowledge.

Incidentally, it should be noted: “Intelligent design” is a misnomer; it is nothing more than new earth creationism repurposed and repackaged as a result of the Supreme Court ruling that creationism education was unconstitutional. The same exact people who peddled the unconstitutional creationism laws in the 1980s are now those advancing intelligent design. Indeed, in the case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Dr. Barbara Forrest proved that creationists had sloppily scrubbed the word “creationism” from a so-called “science” textbook they were attempting to promote, hastily replacing the word with the term “intelligent design” throughout the book; their “Replace All” trick did not succeed, and the federal court held that intelligent design violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. “Intelligent design” does not imply that God guided the evolutionary process; that concept is articulated in the anthropic principle. “Intelligent design” is merely a marketing tool, brought to you and paid for by creationists.

One year after Kansas finally decided to move beyond the manufactured controversy of evolution education, Louisiana became the first state in the country to adopt a law, the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA), that implicitly provides for the teaching of creationism in the public school classroom. It was not the first time Louisiana entertained such a law. In the 1980s, the legislature passed a creationism education law that was subsequently ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard. The law, while never enforced, remains on the books, despite the ruling by the Supreme Court.

Last week, the Louisiana Senate Education Committee considered a bill, authored by Senator Karen Carter-Peterson, that would have repealed the LSEA. I’ve written about the LSEA more than a dozen times during the last year, inspired, in large part, by my friend Zack Kopplin, who, as a senior in high school and now as a freshman in college, has championed its repeal. When I was a teenager, I took a public stance against creationists who sought to upend science, but Zack has done much more than I ever did. Almost single-handedly, he made the LSEA a topic for national, if not international, discussion (somehow, the story was picked up by the Italian Vogue). He authored a petition and received over 70,000 signatures. He enlisted the support of the nation’s largest and most influential science education groups. And he has received endorsements from 78 Nobel laureates. (To put that into context, when the Kansas law was being debated, 38 Nobel laureates spoke out in opposition, and it was, at the time, huge news. Zack has collected more than double; it’s the largest number of Nobel laureates that have ever spoken out against any bill adopted by a state legislature).

The LSEA was not an organic or home-grown piece of legislation. It was created by the Discovery Institute, a national “think tank” that has worked since 1994 to advance creationism laws all over the country. The Discovery Institute was behind the failed efforts in Kansas, and once that well dried up, they turned their focus to the fertile pastures of Louisiana, enlisting the support of the Louisiana Family Forum and Senator Ben Nevers. Louisiana, they all hoped, would become the experimental testing grounds for a new law, a law that could couch itself in language about “academic freedom” in order to surreptitiously provide for the teaching of creationism. And they pulled it off. The bill swept through the legislature and was quickly signed by Governor Bobby Jindal. It may have gone unnoticed, but the Discovery Institute and the Louisiana Family Forum couldn’t help themselves from gloating publicly. They declared victory; they boasted about the law, and, in doing so, they exposed the law for what it truly was: a cleverly-worded attempt at injecting radical right religious beliefs into the science classroom. This was not about “academic freedom;” it was about undermining science, manufacturing a fake controversy about “Darwinism,” and advancing their own narrow ideological beliefs.

It is an enormous embarrassment to the State of Louisiana, and more than any other piece of legislation, it ensures that Bobby Jindal will never be on the Republican ticket as a Vice Presidential candidate. There is no way to defend this law. It’s intended to undermine the fundamentals of science education; it’s intended as a way of using taxpayer dollars for public education in order to advance religion. If you have any question or doubt, then you need to only watch and listen to the debate last week at the Senate Education Committee.

Here’s Senator Mike Walsworth, who voted in support of the creationism law, attempting to debunk the merits of evolution:

Senator Walsworth was attempting to lecture a science teacher about science, yet, apparently, he’d never even encountered the word “molecular” in his life. To many, Mr. Walsworth’s ignorance may seem funny; to me, it’s exasperating. He’s not trying to be funny; he’s dead serious. It was not an isolated incident.

Gene Mills of the Louisiana Family Forum, whose organization spearheaded and helped to author this bill, testified that he would like the Supreme Court to allow for the teaching of creationism in science classrooms.

Mr. Mills was perhaps unwittingly forced to admit his ultimate goal; his only defense in support of the LSEA is that it would not be the “vehicle” that would allow a challenge. It is a ridiculous argument. He pushed through the LSEA precisely because he hopes that it advances his agenda.

Also, there was this overly-caffeinated lady, a home school teacher, who apparently “proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt” that evolution is not a fact. Her testimony is just bizarre and at times offensively stupid, and she was their expert in “science” (and hot dogs).

The meeting also featured a representative from the Governor’s Office, Russell Armstrong. Mr. Armstrong is obviously a bright young man, an Ivy League graduate who taught in the public school system and then ran, unsuccessfully, for the BESE Board. But everything about his testimony seemed inauthentic, forced, and disingenuous, much like it did when he testified on behalf of Governor Jindal in this meeting, during which he shamefully opposed a bill that would have created protections for students bullied because of their sexual orientation or disability:

But perhaps the most offensive testimony came from Southern University Law professor Michelle Ghetti, a graduate of Southern Methodist University, where I am currently a law student. Ms. Ghetti, who admitted to helping write the bill, stridently argued that the LSEA was legal because no one has ever challenged it in court (Still waiting on the video, but you can find her testimony here). With all due respect, Ms. Ghetti should consider re-enrolling in law school. There are three branches of government in these United States; one of them is the legislature. Regardless of her pride of ownership over the LSEA, the legislature is perfectly capable and, indeed, duty-bound to make law and to consider the validity of laws. You don’t need to sue the State of Louisiana in court in order to overturn a law. In my opinion, Ms. Ghetti failed the State Senate Education Committee and the people of Louisiana, and she fundamentally misrepresented the role of the legislature. She acted under the pretense of a law professor and legal expert, when she was, in fact, actually serving as a hired hand (or willing volunteer) of those supporting the bill she helped author. (Incidentally, in her testimony, Ms. Ghetti distorted the ruling of the Seventh Circuit, misquoting it entirely. If I were a student in her class, I would probably be asking for my money back or, at the very least, asking her how much money she was paid to write this legislation).

We are a better State than this. Those who have endorsed and supported the LSEA are doing Louisiana a great disservice; they are exposing us to ridicule, and they are brandishing their own ignorance as if it is something worthy of acclaim. They are ceding to the culture warriors who seek to refashion the world according to their own narrowly-held religious beliefs; they are attempting to reappropriate science. They are destroying the integrity of the Louisiana public school system.

But they won’t get away with it. As a teenager, writing about this issue, I referenced Thomas Jefferson. “Only the educated are free,” he said. Amen.

Zack gets the final word:

Screen Shot 2012-04-23 at 6.27.10 AM

Louisiana Family Forum’s Financials: More Questions Than Answers Reply

by • Education, Local Political News, Social Activism

Nearly a year ago, I wrote about the financial statements, specifically the “990″ forms, submitted to the IRS by the Louisiana Family Forum (the LFF), an organization that is roundly considered the most powerful lobbying group in the State of Louisiana. These forms paint an intriguing, albeit incomplete, picture of the operations of an organization responsible for a litany of controversial laws. Among other things, the LFF was the principal force behind a statewide ballot initiative against gay marriage. The organization has vociferously opposed a bill that would have better protected public school children against bullying. And in 2008, along with the assistance of the Discovery Institute and others, the LFF helped to author and then pass the Louisiana Science Education Act, which implicitly endorses and facilitates the teaching of religious beliefs in the science classroom. The leader of the LFF, Gene Mills, is a fixture at the State Capitol, and arguably, Mills is the single most influential unelected leader in Louisiana politics. And perhaps most interestingly, Gene Mills and the Louisiana Family Forum operate, entirely, as a non-profit and rely, almost entirely, on tax-deductible donations to fund its efforts and its payroll.

Of course, in and of itself, there is absolutely nothing illegal or improper when a group of like-minded advocates form an organization to advance their policy goals in an open, democratic forum. But certainly, the laws protecting and providing for the establishment of non-profit organizations were not intended to subvert the democratic process or to allow our most powerful lobbyists the ability to finance their careers and advance their agendas as if they are protected charities, as if they are somehow exempt from the laws that govern private economic activity and regulate lobbying. As the old adage goes, with great power comes great responsibility.

The Louisiana Family Forum officially considers itself to be an educational organization, but for years, the LFF’s backers, legislators, and the media have properly identified it as a lobbying group. And again, not just any lobbying group, but the most powerful one in Louisiana. When the legislature is not in session, the LFF is, for all intents and purposes, dormant. Indeed, the organization’s raison d’etre has nothing to do with educating the general public; it’s about “educating” our lawmakers, which is the definition of lobbying.

To be fair, Gene Mills is a registered lobbyist, but, incredibly, for the last several years, during which time numerous people affiliated with and even employed by the LFF have testified to the legislature on its behalf, Mills has remained its one and only registered lobbyist. Anyone who follows Louisiana state government knows that, while Mr. Mills may be powerful, the LFF is not and has never been a one-man show. Yesterday, during the State Senate Education Committee hearing on the repeal of the Louisiana Science Education Act, Southern University Law professor Michelle Ghetti, opposing the repeal, testified that she helped to craft and author the original legislation. Now, I could be wrong, but I doubt that Ms. Ghetti did this work pro bono. I doubt she helped write the Louisiana Family Forum’s signature law, the LSEA, as a favor. But during her testimony, she was never asked the most obvious questions: If you wrote this bill, who paid you, how much did they pay you, and was it ever disclosed? Was it Senator Nevers? The Discovery Institute? The Louisiana Family Forum? Or did you provide your services gratuitously or for free? The same questions can and should be asked of others, like former Judge Darrell White, who once appeared on the LFF’s payroll and then suddenly vanquished, even though he continued to publicly champion its efforts.

I mention this all for a reason: The Louisiana Family Forum continues to dole out hundreds of thousands of dollars every year to the Louisiana Family Forum Action (the LFFA), its sister organization which is prohibited from receiving tax-deductible donations but is allowed a more expansive ability to lobby and influence the legislature. And today, according to its disclosures, in addition to paying Mr. Mills for his lobbying work and one other full-time employee, Dale Hoffpauir, the LFF doles out over $120,000 a year in “other” expenses related to employment, presumably consulting contracts which are not subjected to disclosure. Meanwhile, the LFFA is the beneficiary of tax-deductible donations via the LFF, which it could otherwise never receive. Mr. Mills, presumably, makes money as a lobbyist for the Louisiana Family Forum (considering he is its only registered lobbyist and it disclosed over $42,000 in lobbying expenses in its last report), and he receives a full-time salary from the Louisiana Family Forum Action, nearly $90,000 a year.

It’s not an insignificant amount of money. The LFF is apparently spending six figures every single year on consulting services that are not disclosed. This begs the question: Who is getting paid? And while the nuances in the tax code between 501c3s (tax-deductible non-profits) and 501c4s (advocacy arms) may seem impossibly labyrinthine, it’s actually quite simple: Under the current tax regime, a 501c3 that effectively operates as a lobbying group may attempt to shield itself from exposure by setting up a 501c4, as long as the 501c4 raises its own funding. The problem for the Louisiana Family Forum, insofar as I see it, is that it’s engaging in an obvious shell game, operating its 501c4, almost entirely, with the tax-deductible donations it receives from its 501c3. You can do that, no doubt, but there is no obvious advantage: Every penny that a 501c4 receives from a 501c3 is subjected to laws that govern 501c3 expenditures. Or, at least, it’s supposed to be.

I need to be careful here: I am not accusing Mr. Mills or the Louisiana Family Forum of doing anything illegal. I’m merely suggesting that they’re being shady, that, to me, it appears as if the organization has, for years, acted like it has something to hide– whether it’s shielding the full disclosure of hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting services or ineptly exploiting the distinctions between 501c3s and 501c4s. But more importantly, I strongly believe that, as a matter of public policy, we should not provide a tax advantage to a small, politically-connected cabal of powerful lobbyists who pretend as if their alleged religious convictions entitle them to special treatment under the law.

Gene Mills may call himself a reverend, but he earns his living as a lobbyist.

LFF’s annual report: 2010-721416555-07ba1665-9

LFFA’s annual report: 2010-201380165-07c0636f-9O

Nearly Half of All Living Nobel Prize Laureates in the Sciences Personally Endorse a Repeal of Bobby Jindal’s Science Education Act Reply

by • Education, Local Political News, Media Studies, Social Activism

During the last two months, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has attempted to assert his commitment to meaningful and substantive public education reform, introducing a series of controversial bills that would, essentially, defund struggling public schools in order to bankroll private, parochial, and charter schools. Mr. Jindal, who unveiled his plan in front of the largest business lobbying group in Louisiana, wants to give private schools almost unfettered access to public education dollars ($8500 per student per year), a program that is politely and deceptively couched as “vouchers” but is, for all intents and purposes, really just an effort to massively divest from one of America’s most important privileges and rights– a free and public education– in order to fund and prop up an untested and completely unaccountable private education system.

Mr. Jindal, who is the product of one of Louisiana’s best public high schools- Baton Rouge Magnet, is coughing up his plan as if it is empirically-proven and data-driven. But it isn’t. It’s disaster capitalism run amok; it’s a recipe for failure, a sure-fire way of ensuring that publicly-owned educational assets become blighted, depressed, and potentially abandoned entirely. In the short-term, it means giving away precious public education dollars to help underwrite for-profit enterprises who operate by their own standards; it means extricating the best and brightest students out of the public system and leaving behind everyone else– students, teachers, parents, and entire communities; it ensures diminishing returns in the public education system, gutting its necessary funding and deplenishing it of students who help set the curve; it means teachers will be paid less and earn fewer benefits and protections. In the long-term, this large-scale disinvestment will affect the quality of life for all Louisianans, particularly those in working-class neighborhoods. Their schools, many of which serve as anchor institutions, will become neglected– not merely as educational facilities but as physical infrastructure. Mr. Jindal’s plan may sound good to those who see the dollar signs in privatization, but to the rest of us, to those who view education as a right, to those of us who believe in the solvency and the potentiality of a robust public education system, every dollar that lines the pocket of a private school operator is a dollar that could otherwise be used to build up America’s most incredible invention: the right to a free education. Jindal’s plan will not save this right; it will, almost certainly, destroy it.

If you have any question about Mr. Jindal’s intellectual honesty on education issues, then you need to look no further than the Louisiana Science Education Act. I’ve written about this issue frequently, because I think it exposes Mr. Jindal’s contempt for education standards, his inexcusable pandering to the extreme radical wing of his party, and his hypocrisy. The moment a student with standing decides to sue on Constitutional grounds, Mr. Jindal’s Louisiana Science Education Act will finally, once and for all, be exposed for what it is: A usurpation of science by a small and politically-powerful sect of the radical religious right, new earth creationists who believe, as a matter of faith, that their understanding of the universe is somehow scientifically valid; these are rabid proselytizers and aggressively insecure evangelicals who don’t respect the First Amendment and who attempt to hold onto narrowly-constructed nuance (creationism education in public science classrooms has been deemed unconstitutional, so, in response, they hit “Replace All” and changed “creationism” with “intelligent design”).

So, with permission, here is Dr. Ian Chandler Binns’s essay, introducing the 75 (now 77) Nobel Prize laureates who personally oppose Governor Bobby Jindal’s science education act. And to anyone with a fair and open mind, Dr. Binn reminds us that Mr. Jindal’s policy positions are not driven by real data or statistics or empirical evidence, that Mr. Jindal, however impressive his resume may be, does not understand science education or at least pretends not to understand it (Jindal was a Biology major at Brown, and his own biology professor personally criticized Jindal for the LSEA), and that Mr. Jindal’s legislation is anti-science, anti-intellectual, and, most importantly, terrible education policy. At this point, though, maybe it’s par for the course.

****

Profiles of the 75 Nobel Laureates Who Support Repeal of the Louisiana Science Education Act

 Ian C. Binns, Ph.D., Science Education, University of Virginia

Assistant Professor, College of Education, University of North Carolina-Charlotte

 Formerly of Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA

 Member, Louisiana Coalition for Science

For the second year in a row, Senator Karen Carter Peterson (D-New Orleans) has filed a bill to repeal the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA). This year’s bill is SB 374. Zack Kopplin, a 2011 graduate of Baton Rouge Magnet High School and now a freshman at Rice University, is leading the effort again. Last year, in addition to several other prominent scientists, scientific organizations, and educational organizations, Zack had the support of 43 Nobel Laureates, 42 of whom signed a letter to the Louisiana legislature in their attempt to help repeal the LSEA. Unfortunately, that effort failed in the Senate Education Committee, a development which — of course — was celebrated by the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF) and the Discovery Institute (DI), who worked together to write and promote the LSEA. DI responded to the repeal bill’s failure in two articles on its Evolution News and Views blog (see here and here). In both articles, DI promoted a letter[pdf] signed by “15 Ph.D. scientists” challenging “the ideological motives of many of the scientists who have opposed the LSEA.” This letter will be addressed in a separate Louisiana Coalition for Science post. However, this post highlights the achievements of the Nobel Prize-winning scientists who support repeal of the creationist LSEA.

This year, Zack added 32 additional Nobel Laureates to the list, bringing the total to 75 (32 in Physics, 28 in Chemistry, and 15 in Physiology or Medicine). Getting 43 last year was pretty impressive, but 75 Nobel Laureates! As with last year, this number doesn’t include the other endorsements: seven additional prominent scientists, the City Council of New Orleans (unanimously), the Clergy Letter Project, three organizations of educators, and six national science organizations. That’s quite an impressive group of people who support the protection of science education in Louisiana.

However, I have learned through my involvement in the repeal effort and participation in defending the state textbook selection process in 2010 (see here) that merely having a list of individuals and organizations, even one as impressive as this, isn’t enough. I recently read a comment posted to an article about the current repeal effort in which the commenter asked whether anyone had ever heard of any of the 75 Nobel Laureates. The comment made me think that most Louisiana legislators probably feel the same way. This year, I thought it would be interesting to not only talk about the number of Nobel Laureates, but to look at some of the advancements we have made as a society because of their contributions to science. I hope that after learning about how these scientists have helped advance human wellbeing, it will be more difficult for Louisiana legislators to turn their backs on these Nobel Laureates’ support for repeal of the LSEA.

After several weeks of researching each of the 75 Laureates, I found some very interesting information on how their work has improved society. Ideally, I would like to share all of this information. Since this is impractical, my goal is not to focus on the scientific explanations of their work but simply to address how it has benefitted society. Readers who want to learn more about the science behind their work can go to theNobel Prize website, which provides a nice summary of each winner’s work in a press release and, in some cases, a section called “Popular Information” (see here and here, for example).

I have organized their work into three main areas: scientific advancements, technological advancements, and medical advancements. Finally, I also included statements of acclaim made by other members of the scientific community. I would like to point out that all of these scientists worked with a team of people. In fact, of the 75 Nobel Laureates who support the repeal effort, all except eight shared the award with at least one other scientist. However, I am going to focus only on the Laureates who support repeal of the LSEA.

Scientific Advancements

The work of all 75 Nobel Laureates has led to scientific advancements. My purpose in this section is to focus on only those scientists whose work primarily led to further advances in basic science instead of applied disciplines such as technology or medicine. Some of the Nobel Laureates have been credited for strengthening a specific scientific discipline. For example, Christian de Duve (1974; Physiology or Medicine), who discovered lysosomes and peroxisomes (two important organelles in cells), has “been largely responsible for the creation of modern Cell Biology” (Nobel Prize [NP] press release). Riccardo Giacconi (2002; Physics), the first person to detect a source of x-rays outside our solar system, was credited for laying the “foundations of X-ray astronomy” (NP press release). Gerhard Ertl (2007; Chemistry), who studies surface chemistry, has “laid the foundation of modern surface chemistry” (NP “Information for the Public”) [pdf].

Ben Mottelson (1975; Physics), who shared his award with Aage Bohr, the son of Niels Bohr, was one of the key scientists whose work led to a “deepened understanding of the structure of the atomic nucleus” (NP press release). Leon Lederman (1988; Physics), who is arguably one of the top particle physicists in the world and whom Chicago Museum of Science and Technology once called a “modern day Leonardo da Vinci,” was part of the team that developed the neutrino beam method and discovered muon neutrinos. Due to their work, “neutrinos have been used to analyze everything from the structure of the atomic nucleus to the energy level of an exploding star, or supernova” (Academy of Achievement).

Brian Schmidt and Adam Riess, the most recent winners in physics, received their award for discovering that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating. This discovery has had an enormous impact on our understanding of the universe. Finally, if all of this isn’t sufficiently impressive, then perhaps understanding the impact of the work of Paul Crutzen (1995; Chemistry) and Mario Molina (1995; Chemistry) would be interesting. These two scientists won their awards for their work on ozone layer depletion and their identification of the cause of the hole in the ozone layer. The Nobel Prize press release indicated that “[b]y explaining the chemical mechanisms that affect the thickness of the ozone layer, the three researchers have contributed to our salvation from a global environmental program that could have catastrophic consequences.”

Technological Advancements

It was really interesting to learn how the work of some of the 75 Nobel Laureates has led to many technological advancements that we take for granted. For example, Herbert Kroemer’s (2000; Physics) research has directly impacted literally everyone’s daily life. His research on transistors has “furthered the development of the cell phone and other wireless communications technologies” (IEEE Global History Network). All Louisiana legislators probably have some sort of a wireless communication device, especially considering that as of June 2011, there were 322.8 million wireless subscriber connections in the United States alone (CTIA Advocacy). What about GPS technology? William Phillips and Claude Cohen-Tannoudji(1997; Physics) and John Hall (2005; Physics) have all contributed to the development of better GPS technology. I can think of multiple occasions when my GPS has helped me when I was either lost or trying to find a way around heavy traffic.

The work of at least two Laureates has had a direct impact on the computer industry. Philip Warren Anderson’s (1977; Physics) work led to the development of memory devices for computers. Albert Fert’s(2007; Physics) work has made it possible for hard drives to read and write more data. In fact, a 2007 article in ScienceDaily indicated that “it is thanks to this technology [discovered by Albert Fert] that it has been possible to miniaturize hard disks so radically in recent years.”

Finally, flat screen LCD and LED TVs are becoming more popular each year. Alan Heeger (2000; Chemistry) is one Nobel Laureate that we can thank for this. His work with conductive polymers has helped this technology advance. The 2000 Nobel Prize press release stated the following about his work and the impact on LED TVs: “In a few years…, flat television screens based on LED film will become reality, as will luminous traffic signs and information signs.”

Medical Advancements

Probably the most important area to consider is how the work of some of the 75 Nobel Laureates has led to advancements in the field of medicine, including pharmaceuticals, improved understandings of diseases or other medical issues, and new non-pharmaceutical treatments.

Pharmaceuticals

At least 13 of the 75 have directly contributed to advancement of the pharmaceutical industry. Susumu Tonegawa (1987; Physiology or Medicine) and Peter Doherty (1996; Physiology or Medicine) have both contributed to our understanding of how our immune system protects us from various diseases. Their work has made it possible for scientists to develop vaccines to combat several ailments, including cancer, multiple sclerosis, and diabetes. The work of Robert H. Grubbs and Richard Schrock (2005; Chemistry) has also greatly impacted the pharmaceutical industry. They developed a method for creating new molecules that is more efficient, cheaper, and environmentally friendly. The “Information for the Public” [pdf] on the 2005 chemistry prize web page states that this new process is “an important weapon in the hunt for new pharmaceuticals for treating many of the world’s major diseases.” These diseases include bacterial infections, hepatitis C, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, Down’s syndrome, osteoporosis, arthritis, and HIV/AIDS.

Several other of the Laureates supporting repeal of the LSEA have directly impacted the pharmaceutical industry. These include Roald Hoffmann (1981; Chemistry), who introduced theoretical models for chemical reactions; Elias Corey (1990; Chemistry), who developed the theory and methodology of organic synthesis;Kurt Wuthrich (2002; Chemistry), who determined the 3D structure of different biological macromolecules in solution; and Martin Chalfie and Roger Tsien (2008; Chemistry), both of whom worked on the discovery and development of the green fluorescent protein. The contributions of these scientists have dramatically improved our ability to combat several diseases with a variety of medications.

I conclude this section by focusing on the combined efforts of four of the 75 Laureates. The first two, Peter Agre and Roderick MacKinnon, shared the award (2003; Chemistry) for their work with water channels and ion channels in cells. Their discoveries made it possible to develop “new and more effective pharmaceuticals” (NP press release). An article from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine states that because of Peter Agre’s contributions, scientists now have a “fundamental understanding, at the molecular level, of malfunctioning channels associated with many diseases of the kidneys, skeletal muscle, and other organs.” The second two are Venki Ramakrishnan and Thomas Steitz, who shared the award (2009; Chemistry) for their studies of the structure and function of the ribosome. According to the NP press release, these two scientists “generated 3D models that show how different antibiotics bind to the ribosome. These models are now used by scientists in order to develop new antibiotics, directly assisting the saving of lives and decreasing humanity’s suffering.”

Understanding Diseases

Another area influenced by several of the 75 Nobel Laureates is our understanding of diseases and other medical issues, primarily the study of cancer. The American Cancer Society expects [pdf, p. 55] roughly 1.6 million new cases to be diagnosed in the U.S. in 2012. The chances are high that people reading this post know someone who either currently has or previously had cancer. I included this information to highlight how significant the impact of the Laureates’ work has been on our understanding and treatment of this disease. Each of the following Laureates has had a direct impact on the search for a cure: Paul Berg (1980; Chemistry); Sir Richard Roberts and Phillip Sharp (1993; Physiology or Medicine); Peter Doherty (1996; Physiology or Medicine); Robert Horvitz and John Sulston (2002; Physiology or Medicine); Aaron Ciechanover and Avram Hershko (2004; Chemistry); Roger Kornberg (2006; Chemistry); and Jack Szostak (2009; Physiology or Medicine).

Cancer isn’t the only area that these Nobel Laureates have impacted. David Baltimore (1975; Physiology or Medicine) is a pioneer in the study of viruses that cause tumors in humans (especially retroviruses like HIV).Erwin Neher (1991; Physiology or Medicine) improved our understanding of diseases like diabetes and cystic fibrosis. Eric Wieschaus’s (1995; Physiology or Medicine) work improved our understanding of the cause of some early miscarriages and birth defects. Stanley Prusiner (1997; Physiology or Medicine) improved our understanding of the cause of dementia-related diseases like Alzheimer’s disease and “mad cow” disease. Arvid Carlsson’s (2000; Physiology or Medicine) work led to the discovery of the cause of Parkinson’s disease as well as advancements in our understanding of schizophrenia and depression. What makes Arvid Carlsson’s contribution so interesting is that, according to an article from the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, a treatment for Parkinson’s disease that stemmed from his work is still “the most effective treatment available for Parkinson’s disease.” The interesting part is that he conducted his research in the late 1950s and early 1960s, over 50 years ago!

Medical Treatments

A final area in which some of these Nobel Laureates have had a direct impact is in non-pharmaceutical medical treatments. Richard Ernst (1991; Chemistry) and Alexei Abrikosov (2003; Physics) have both had an influence on the use of magnetic resonance imaging, better known as MRI. Torsten Wiesel’s (1981; Physiology or Medicine) work on information processing in the visual system led to more effective treatments for congenital cataracts (see also The Rockefeller University). Finally, Craig Mello’s (2006; Physiology or Medicine) work has helped scientists find ways to control high blood pressure and seek potential treatments for “virus infections, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, endocrine disorders, and several other conditions” (NP press release).

Statements of Acclaim

I want to end by sharing some pretty impressive statements about some of the Nobel Laureates who are supporting repeal of the LSEA. These statements speak for themselves:

  • Murray Gell-Mann (1969; Physics) – “No scientist has done more to shape our understanding of the universe than Murray Gell-Mann, the Nobel Prize-winner often considered the most brilliant physicist of his generation.” (From the 1999 book Strange Beauty: Murray Gell-Mann and the Revolution in 20th-Century Physics, by George Johnson)
  • Russell Hulse (1993; Physics) – “Hulse and Taylor’s discovery has been ranked by many as among the most important scientific accomplishments of the 20th Century.” (UT-Dallas press release)
  • Paul Crutzen and Mario Molina (1995; Chemistry) – “The discoveries [about the ozone layer] led to an international environmental treaty, which, by the end of this year, bans the production of industrial chemicals that reduce the ozone layer.” (Article in The Tech, MIT newspaper)
  • Paul Crutzen (1995; Chemistry) – “It was thanks to Paul Crutzen that we skirted a previous global atmospheric threat: the destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer. If the warnings from him and his fellow winners of the 1995 Nobel Prize in chemistry, Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina, hadn’t come when they did, the Antarctic ozone hole might have proved disastrous.” (TimeMagazine article by James Hansen, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies)
  • John Mather (2006; Physics) – “On April 29, 1992, the English physicist Stephen Hawking said in an interview in The Times that the COBE [satellite proposed by Mather and launched in 1989] results were ‘the greatest discovery of the century, if not of all times.’” (NP ”Information for the Public”) [pdf]
  • Craig Mello (2006; Physiology or Medicine) – “It is very unusual for a piece of work to completely revolutionize the whole way we think about biological processes and regulation, but this has opened up a whole new field in biology.” (Comment by Professor Nick Hastie, director of the Medical Research Council’s Human Genetics Unit (UK), in a BBC News article)

Conclusion

Citizens who are trying to protect the teaching of science are fighting an uphill battle in Louisiana. It is important to point out to the Louisiana Senate Education Committee and to the rest of the Louisiana legislature the contributions of the scientists they are disregarding. Perhaps it would be helpful to just send this document directly to each legislator on the Senate Education Committee. I was already impressed with these 75 Nobel Laureates just for having won the world’s most prestigious prize. However, understanding how their contributions have benefitted society and even directly impacted my own life makes me want to meet them and personally thank them for all they have done — and for their support of such an important effort as the repeal of the Louisiana Science Education Act.

Download [pdf]

It Pays To Be Buddy With Caldwell 1

by • Downtown Alexandria, Local Political News, Smart Growth, Social Activism

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.

Screen shot 2012-03-27 at 3.08.02 AM

Louisiana College’s “Road Less Traveled” And Why They Actually Lost A Case They Won 1

by • Education, Local Political News, Media Studies, Social Activism

On Monday, Louisiana College President Joe Aguillard sent out, through his secretary, this press advisory:

Tuesday,

April 3, 2012

 11:00 a.m.

 Granbery Conference Center 

Louisiana College will hold a Press Conference where Dr. Joe Aguillard will announce that Louisiana College has won the seven year legal battle regarding our right to teach according to our religious beliefs. 

Please plan to attend this historical event.

IN IMPORTANT RELIGIOUS LIBERTIES DECISION, COURT DISMISSES FORMER PROFESSERS’ LAWSUIT BASED ON PROHIBITED ENTANGLEMENT 

Establishment Clause Of The First Amendment Of United States Constitution Prohibits Decision Where Court Would Have To Choose Baptist Theology

Court may not make ruling “respecting an establishment of Religion.”  U.S. Const. Amend. 1.

Reasons for Judgment – La College

So, here’s how naive I am: When I received this blockbuster press advisory, I looked up the decisions that had been rendered on Monday by the United States Supreme Court. And for a brief moment, I actually wondered if Aguillard was somehow latching onto the Court’s controversial decision about strip searching, since, out of the three decisions rendered on Monday, it was the only one of consequence. But, of course, that couldn’t be right. What the heck was Joe Aguillard going to announce? There was nothing from the Court of Appeals. Nothing from the Louisiana Supreme Court.

Now, we know, though, that Joe Aguillard was touting a decision rendered by Judge Doggett of the Ninth JDC. I should make this clear: I voted for Judge Doggett; I think she is fair, and I completely understand why she dismissed this case; after all, the professors in this suit were asserting claims of defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, two of the most difficult torts to prove. But I think Judge Doggett would also acknowledge that she is an elected district court judge and that it is a little, if not completely, disingenuous for Joe Aguillard to claim that her dismissal of an employment dispute, in the context of a defamation and IIED claim, amounts to an historical decision on religious freedom.

After reading Judge Doggett’s decision, I don’t think it’s nearly as much of a victory as Joe Aguillard and company are touting it to be. In many ways, it’s a net loss for Joe Aguillard and his administration. But before I get to the reasons why, let me first say: This was an extremely well-crafted, well-written, and informative opinion. So, kudos to Judge Doggett and her team.

Amazingly, this lawsuit originated over a dispute between professors and the administration about Scott Peck’s incredible book The Road Less Traveled. Until his death in 2005, Scott Peck was one of the country’s greatest Christian scholars and most notable psychologists, but according to LC’s lawyer, he was a “Buddhist” when he wrote The Road Less Traveled, which gave them the right to ban the book from their campus. Dr. Peck wasn’t ever a real Buddhist, but he was, most definitely, a real, bonafide Christian who just happened to say things that sounded Buddhist.

This case is really not about religious freedom, per se, at least as many of think about religious freedom; it’s about the right of the LC administration to discriminate against professors who do not share their own theological perspective. Louisiana College, under Joe Aguillard’s leadership, banned the book from its curricula, presumably because they believed the book did not conform to their own opinions about Christianity, and the professors allege that they were subsequently defamed, both by the administration and by students. Apparently, a “packet of letters” was disseminated criticizing the professors’s religious beliefs.Testimony from student’s remarks about watching the PG-13 film adapting the production of Hamet  was somehow important. Whatever.

This aspect of the case was probably an easy decision for Judge Doggett. The professors, who were likely subjected to all sorts of ridiculous and hyperbolic criticism, who understandably felt misrepresented, mistreated, and maligned by LC (which occurred even after LC apologized to them), and who spent years litigating this at great personal expense, were asking the court to determine something it simply cannot determine: The definition of Biblical inerrancy. Neither Judge Doggett nor any other judge in this country can rule on something like this.

And so, while it may be discouraging to some who believe Aguillard and company were responsible for maligning these professors and distorting their religious views, because the professors’s defamation claims were so intertwined with “theological nuance,” there’s no practical way for them to be proven in a courtroom, as interesting as it would be to put Joe Aguillard’s religious beliefs on trial.

This, in effect, is Joe Aguillard’s “landmark” victory: It’s a na-na-na-na-boo-boo, I-can-say-what-I-want-to about your religion argument. It may turn the stomachs of most reasonable people who believe in the free and open exchange of ideas and people like me, who believe the serious study of religion requires us to confront serious questions and who think it’s arrogant, anti-intellectual bullying to suggest that anyone who challenges you is somehow not as righteous or Godly as you profess to be. But Aguillard does have this right.

Here’s the irony, though, and I realize I’ve buried the lede here: Joe Aguillard and company may have won this case, technically, but the majority of Judge Doggett’s opinion was about rejecting the defense offerred by Louisiana College.  LC would have been better off if they had just kept quiet and stuck with the facts. But instead, they offerred this full-throated defense that they were actually a church and that Joe Aguillard and company were entitled to a ministerial exception.

And because LC offered this defense, we now have a great analysis from Judge Doggett, clearly and definitively holding that LC is NOT a church and is not entitled to a ministerial exception. She may have ruled against the professors, but she also, smartly, severely undermined LC’s ability to argue, now or in the future, that it can somehow shield itself from liability under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment or that it can duck behind a ministerial exception when it violates a person’s rights in employment disputes. And I’d submit to all of you: This is a huge blow to Louisiana College’s attempt to operate according to its own rules.

It’s also worth pointing out: LC and Joe Aguillard fought this for years. At the end of the day, they may have prevailed on the defamation and IIED claims, but they lost on the real substance of their defense. And guess what? They still have to pay for every penny. Hardly a landmark victory. If anything, it’s a huge defeat couched as a minor win that acknowledges something already well-established: Joe Aguillard and his administration have always been able to argue over Baptist “theological nuance,” even when they’re being total jerks about it.

“Life is difficult,” Scott Peck began in The Road Less Traveled. “This is the great truth, one of the greatest truths,this truth, we transcend it.”

If Only We Could Have More Negative Things… 9

by • Local Political News, Media Studies

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.