The numbers don’t lie: Louisiana has the highest incarceration rate in the world. We lock up more of our citizens, per capita, than countries subjected to the rule of brutal dictators or totalitarian regimes– more than Iran, more than China, more than Saudi Arabia, more than Mississippi.

My buddy Daniel was wise. He recorded a video with the express intention of proving our attendance (though we both eventually relocated to the floor):

But we weren’t in Denver to report on the Louisiana Democratic Party; that wasn’t our story. We were there to write about the nomination of Barack Obama. In hindsight, I wish I had written about the Louisiana Democratic Party, because that was the real story: Obama’s nomination was preordained, after all, and the convention itself was scripted political theater. The Louisiana Democratic Party, however, didn’t follow a script, and behind the scenes, it was a complete mess.

At the time, Chris Whittington, a Baton Rouge attorney, served as the Chairman of the Party. Mr. Whittington was notably absent from many of the party’s events that week. Indeed, even though I stayed at the host hotel and got to know nearly every single delegate, the first and only time I saw Mr. Whittington was on the floor of the convention. I am, literally, sitting right under the microphone here (and thankfully, off camera):

I couldn’t help but feel embarrassed for my state. They hadn’t counted their delegates until the very last moment. Only minutes before the delegation was to appear on national television, they were still scrambling. Considering the circumstances, the word “disorganized”is an understatement. And when the cameras finally panned over, instead of allowing our Senior United States Senator, Mary Landrieu, the opportunity to make the announcement (something that nearly every other delegation had done), the mic went to a delegate (who called Louisiana the home of “shrimp”) and Chairman Whittington, who slurred his words so badly that the DNC asked for a clarification.

It was deeply troubling to me and, without question, to many others as well. This was the biggest stage the Louisiana Democratic Party could possibly be on, and they fumbled it, big time. But there is another reason I was both embarrassed and troubled: During the previous three or four days, I had met and spoken with exceptionally dedicated and fiercely intelligent Louisiana Democrats. The problem, as I saw it, was that these folks weren’t in charge. The party had smart, organized leaders, but they weren’t in a position to lead. For too long, the word “party” was taken literally.

Chris Whittington, former Chairman of the Louisiana Democratic Party

Mr. Whittington resigned from his post only two years later, and former Congressman Buddy Leach, who had served previously as Chairman of the party, took back his old position. I do not question Mr. Leach’s commitment to the Louisiana Democratic Party. He’s an accomplished man with an impressive resume and an equally impressive family. (In fairness, to both men’s credit, they employed two exceptional communications directors, Scott Jordan and Kevin Franck, who would be an asset to any organization).

But frankly, I believe if the Louisiana Democratic Party wants to be competitive, then it must adapt. They cannot afford to return to the sloppy and fractious leadership offered by those who supported Mr. Whittington, and they cannot make any headway under the leadership of Mr. Leach, a man who provided former Governor Edwin Edwards a job right after he was released from prison. In return, Governor Edwards publicly suggested that Louisiana Democrats rebrand themselves under a different name. Thanks but no thanks.

(Credit: Chris Granger of The Times-Picayune)

Governor Edwards has a fascinating story, and, without question, he’s remained a magnetic personality throughout his career. But by definition, magnetism requires polarization. Like him or loathe him, Governor Edwards has done more to undermine the credibility and the reputation of the Louisiana Democratic Party than any other single person in Louisiana history. When he emerged from prison after eight years, he married a Republican conservative more than fifty years younger than him (an Alexandria woman who met him in prison after reading Leo Honeycutt’s biography), took a “consultant” job with a company owned by the Chairman of the Louisiana Democratic Party, and went on a media tour during which he suggested the Democratic Party rebrand itself to appeal to conservative-minded centrists.

With all due respect to the former Governor (who has refused multiple requests for interviews), the Louisiana Democratic Party is no longer your party.

State Senator and Louisiana Democratic Party Chairwoman Karen Carter Peterson

Two weeks ago, Karen Carter Peterson defeated Buddy Leach to become Chairwoman of Louisiana Democratic Party. In so doing, Senator Peterson made history as the first-ever African-American woman elected to lead a major political party in Louisiana. And this week, she made history again, selecting Stephen Handwerk as the Louisiana Democratic Party’s interim executive director. Mr. Handwerk is the first openly gay executive director of a major political party in Louisiana, and he is also, perhaps, the most qualified executive director of a political party in modern Louisiana history.

Senator Peterson’s election as Chairwoman represents a major, fundamental shift in the Louisiana Democratic Party’s power structure and a huge victory for like-minded Louisiana progressives. I have no doubt that in Louisiana, progressives are the sleeping giant, the silent majority, and the future. We are a state of big and bold ideas, a state that once imagined every man as a king. We may not be as radical today, and, thankfully, we’re also not naive: Still, we know that government can build bridges and roadways and schools, that competent government yields returns for all of us.

Stephen Handwerk, the new interim Executive Director of the Louisiana Democratic Party.

And without question, Senator Peterson and Director Handwerk also know this: Governor Jindal and the Louisiana Republican Party may be good at running campaigns, but Mr. Jindal and his party have been colossal failures at governing. Mr. Jindal inherited a billion dollar surplus and immediately squandered it, recklessly repealing a tax plan that had been approved through a statewide referendum only a few years prior and costing the state billions and billions in future lost revenue, all the while providing enormous tax incentives to mega-wealthy corporations.

Look, this isn’t fiction; this isn’t hyperbole; this is the truth: Jindal is the most financially reckless governor in contemporary Louisiana history.  If Louisiana were a Fortune 500 company and Jindal was the CEO, he would have been fired years ago; the man cannot manage a balance sheet. But because he’s a Governor who has bankrupted the State and pilfered revenues, depleted services, and privatized programs and assets in order to prop up private-sector balance sheets, he can somehow, incredibly, present himself as a steward of fiscal conservatism. Though, truthfully, Governor Jindal and the Louisiana Republican Party don’t need to run on their abysmal economic record: They can just run on social issues. Louisiana voters are that stupid, the logic apparently goes: You can squander a huge surplus by giving all of the money away to your well-heeled corporate campaign contributors as long as the real issues are creationism in the schools, gay marriage, school bullying, and sex offenders on Facebook, his top legislative priorities. To be sure, privatizing public education and selling off prisons (in order to eliminate the need to pay for employee benefits) are an afterthought.

Under the leadership of Senator Peterson and folks like Stephen Handwerk, it’ll be a new day for the Louisiana Democratic Party. Sorry Governor Edwards and apologies to the old guard: Life is hard; you have to change.

PS: Thanks to the vapid idiot who runs the website The Hayride for inspiring this post. You and your website contribute nothing of substance to our political discourse, nothing. If anything, considering your posts about the President not having a “drop of slave blood,” you are corrosive, and often, your website is nothing more than thinly-veiled bigotry. 1951 may be comfortable, but most of us prefer to live in 2012.

Indeed, so far, twenty-two states have already adopted similar legislation, including our neighbors in Arkansas. But, fortunately for Arkansans, they don’t have to contend with a man like Gene Mills, an organization like the Louisiana Family Forum, or a governor who is all-too-willing to kowtow to the intransigent demands of a small but powerful group of radical right wing fundamentalists.

(Governor Bobby Jindal being “prayed” on by Mr. Gene Mills in the privacy of their own made-for-TV special)

“Bullying” is a word we primarily apply when children are involved. When it involves adults, we call it assault, and if you’re found guilty of assault, it’s likely that you may spend time behind bars. And if you assault someone specifically because of their ethnicity, disability, religion, or sexual orientation, in most states, your punishment will be even more severe; it would qualify as a hate crime.

Understandably, we treat children differently; we transpose the word “bullying.” But if the rash of recent suicides by bullied children proves anything, it’s that bullying is not merely some rite of passage that we must all endure; it’s not simply a part of being a kid.

Throughout the last two years, Gene Mills, the chief lobbyist and President of the tax-exempt Louisiana Family Forum, has fought vociferously against the passage of anti-bullying bills, with the implicit support of Governor Bobby Jindal and his administration. Mr. Mills (he refers to himself as a Reverend, but until he fully discloses his organization’s finances, I see no reason to bestow him with any honorarium) has opposed the legislation because it, among other things, protects children from bullying on the basis of their sexual orientation. And this, according to Mr. Mills, who fashions himself as a Christian leader, is merely an attempt at advancing the “gay agenda.”

I don’t have much patience for charlatans or bigots or people who promote themselves as religious leaders in order to justify their discriminatory beliefs. Mr. Mills, with the assistance of State Senator Rick Ward, is now authoring his own anti-bullying bill, which appears to be nothing more than a toothless, meaningless recapitulation of existing law designed to help Mr. Mills and his organization reclaim a public relations war, and which, unsurprisingly, has the endorsement of Governor Bobby Jindal. Governor Jindal’s support is telling; it reveals, among other things, how much power Gene Mills and the Louisiana Family Forum have over him and his agenda. Just last month, Jindal’s aide, Russell Armstrong (who completely embarrassed himself), argued against the anti-bullying bill on behalf of his administration, suggesting that there was no reason to change existing law.

Mr. Armstrong, on behalf of Governor Jindal, said that the Jindal administration doesn’t “believe in passing legislation for the sake of passing legislation.” Now, we know that is simply not true. Russell Armstrong and Bobby Jindal were opposed to the anti-bullying bill for the same reason Gene Mills was opposed to it: The bill mentioned, among many other things, the need to prevent bullying (read: assault) against children on the basis of their sexual orientation.

The (Louisiana Senate) panel refused to back a second bill by Sen. Yvonne Dorsey-Colomb, D-Baton Rouge, that would spell out that harassment and bullying would not be allowed because of a person’s characteristics, including race, ancestry, religion, physical or intellectual disability, mental illness, language ability, sexual orientation, gender identity and political ideas. Such a list has been repeatedly opposed by the conservative Louisiana Family Forum and religious groups as introducing sexual politics into the classroom and promoting a “gay agenda” in schools.

Gene Mills, head of the family forum, helped write Ward’s bill, without a list of characteristics.

“This is a careful attempt to balance the rights of children with the duties of adults,” Mills said.

Can we be honest with one another here? Governor Jindal, Gene Mills, and the Louisiana Family Forum do not object to a bill that would prohibit bullying against a child because of their race, ancestry, religion, physical or intellectual disability, mental illness, language ability, or political ideas. They have no problem with that; it’s fair. Their issue is a bill that would prohibit bullying on the basis of a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity. In their view, apparently, the prohibition against such bullying would result in the introduction of “sexual politics” (a term I have never heard until now) and the promotion of the “gay agenda.” In Governor Jindal’s and Gene Mills’s world, the government can prevent the introduction of “sexual politics” (again, wow, what a turn of phrase) and the advancement of the “gay agenda” by ensuring that kids aren’t singled out for bullying other kids because of their sexual orientation. To them, it’s more important to protect the right of an ignorant and hateful bully to chastise and ridicule someone for being gay (because, you know, Jesus gave them special permission to be sanctimonious jerks) than it is to protect the safety and dignity of the children most vulnerable to attack and most susceptible to depression and suicide.

Without question, the overwhelming majority of Louisianans would support legislation that protects our children against bullying. I don’t know what Governor Jindal and Mr. Mills are scared of. Here is Governor Jindal, just yesterday, saying that he doesn’t believe in discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation:

Still, while Governor Jindal auditions in front of the country for Vice President, back in Louisiana, he continues to embrace Gene Mills and the divisive, destructive, and hypocritical agenda of the Louisiana Family Forum. And to be clear, I hope Governor Romney selects Governor Jindal, as David Frum implored him to do earlier this week, because when all is said and done, Jeremiah Wright has nothing on Gene Mills.

Here.

I realize I am a little late; the Mile4Max event already occurred here in Dallas (Max and his family are all from Dallas). But nonetheless, I am compelled to share this boy’s story, because this is almost exactly how I walked and talked and ambled around at that age. Like Max, I was also born with cerebral palsy. And two days ago, Max had the same major spinal surgery that I had when I was his age, from the same doctor.

It’d be great if people contributed to provide for his care; if you can, please give. It’s a shame that any family in this country should ever be financially burdened because their child was born with a disability. Max, after all, is an inspiration.

And I don’t mean to politicize any of this, but when we allow insurance companies to deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions, as they did to me, then we are forcing working-class families to either deny necessary treatment or rely, almost entirely, on soliciting the beneficence of their neighbors.

I commend his family for putting their story out there.

When I was a kid, I rooted for a few different athletes: Frank Thomas, Kirby Puckett, Ken Griffey, Jr., Troy Aikman, and, of course, the entire roster of the New Orleans Saints (I’m admitting to a lot here). I will always root for the Saints; don’t get me wrong. I even own a Saints jersey, which I wore every Sunday last season and will continue to wear during every single Saints game until it finally just comes apart at the seams. #37.

As a kid, I looked up to these larger-than-life athletes as my heroes. But as an adult, my heroes are kids like Max. Throwing, catching, and hitting a ball are way easier than what he has to do every day.

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:

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

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)

• Robert H. Grubbs and Richard Schrock (2005; Chemistry) – “Metathesis is an example of how important basic science has been applied for the benefit of man, society and the environment.” (NP press release)

• Robert H. Grubbs and Richard Schrock (2005; Chemistry) – “This is what Alfred Nobel had in mind when he created the Nobel Prize — basic research making life easier and better for humankind.” (UC-Riverside article)

• 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)

• Brian Schmidt and Adam Riess (2011; Physics) – The journal Science named their discovery of dark energy the “Breakthrough Discovery of the Year” for 1998. (Johns Hopkins University 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]

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.

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.”

“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.

Last year, as a senior in high school, Zack Kopplin made national headlines when he spearheaded an effort to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act (the LSEA), a law that serves absolutely no purpose other than allowing religious fundamentalist public school “science” teachers the opportunity to inject their own religiously-based creationist beliefs into the biology classroom. The LSEA, which is likely unconstitutional, undermines the integrity and credibility of our public education system; it empowers teachers to preach religion under the guise of science, and it prevents students the opportunity of having a robust and fact-based education in biological science and evolution.

And the law was brought to you and paid for by a small cabal of powerful legislators and politically-connected lobbyists, namely, the Discovery Institute and the Louisiana Family Forum. I’ll guarantee this: While the vast and overwhelming majority of Louisianans, in some way, contribute directly or indirectly in funding education, 99.99999% have never contributed to the Discovery Institute or the Louisiana Family Forum.

Last year, Zack, with the help and support of Senator Karen Carter Peterson, launched a full-throated effort at repealing this pernicious legislation– the first and only of its kind in the country, and this year, they’re trying again. (And by all indications, they plan on trying until it is finally repealed, no matter how long it may take).

And thank God because the LSEA is seriously embarrassing; it is the most obvious reminder that, despite his rhetorical flourishes, Bobby Jindal doesn’t care at all about increasing educational standards. Jindal, a Biology major at Brown, was rebuffed by his own college biology professor for signing the LSEA into law. Indeed, while Jindal may suggest this is about academic freedom, Zack has lined up endorsements from 75 Nobel laureates– over 40% of all Nobel winners in the sciences– in support of the repeal of the LSEA. Jindal and his cohorts don’t have the support of a single Nobel Prize winner, in any field. None. And that’s important to remember, as Jindal criss-crosses the State and pretends as if he understands the magic formula that will solve education. (More on that in a later post).

Last week, Zack cornered Presidential candidate and former US Senator Rick Santorum at an event at Louisiana College.

A few key takeaways:

* Santorum authored federal legislation that was to be included in No Child Left Behind, which would have allowed the injection of creationist education in public school classrooms. His blithering comments about this being a “states rights” issue are belied by his own position.

* He’ll never be President.

* He forgot to consult with the playbook. Zack clearly asks him about his efforts to promote CREATIONIST education (which is true), but Santorum and friends usually refute the notion that they’re promoting “creationism,” as it’s already been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Aguillard v. Edwards (an ironically-named case originating out of Louisiana). Santorum should have pushed back against the creationist label; he should have said this was not about religion, but instead, about intelligent design. That’s what the talking point is, at least. But the truth is, as Santorum unwittingly reveals, there’s no secret that creationism and intelligent design are interchangeable; it’s an artificial distinction.

* Except that creationism education in public science classrooms is unconstitutional. “Intelligent design” may be code language, but no one is supposed to admit this, even tacitly, even in passing, even when it is the result of a failure of omission. Regardless, as Santorum’s off-the-cuff remarks prove: There’s no real distinction; intelligent design is creationism rebranded. And creationism in public school science classes has already been declared unconstitutional.

So, to my buddy Zack (who is now a freshman at my alma mater, Rice): Keep fighting the good fight. Soon enough, people will wake up. And soon enough, Mitt Romney will have to answer the same questions.

Here’s the whole event:

Conservatives love to denounce judicial activism whenever courts affirm cases that expand or acknowledge civil rights and equal protection under the law. For example, when courts rule in favor of allowing gay and lesbian Americans the opportunity to access the 1,100+ tax benefits that their heterosexual peers can access as a result of marriage, conservatives suggest these judges are “legislating from the bench.” It strikes me as a strange and hypocritical balancing act: Conservatives, who decry government intervention and like to promote the autonomy of religion, seek to use their own religious beliefs about the sanctity of their own religiously-based ceremonies as justification for government intervention and institutional discrimination. That said, the Supreme Court has not yet taken up the issue of gay marriage, and I doubt they will any time soon. But they have, in recent years, demonstrated their own propensity for judicial activism, and to me, there’s an amazing irony and disconnect, which is particularly present in the current debate over the constitutionality of health care reform and the individual mandate. Bear with me here; I have a point.

Currently, the Supreme Court is deciding whether the government has the ability to require Americans to purchase health insurance, which conservatives and opponents of the law believe to be an overreach of federal authority that undermines our fundamental liberty to not do anything at all, ever– a ridiculous proposition based on the false dialectic between activity and inactivity. In my last post on this issue, I blamed the fiction writer Ayn Rand for first advancing this absurdity, which is predicated on the belief that there is no such thing as interdependence and that the social contract should be considered optional. Aside from the indisputable fact that we are all actors in the health care market by virtue of our birth and that one’s decision to be selfish and not purchase health insurance directly causes an increase in costs and a decrease in available coverage for everyone else, opponents of Obamacare are advancing the argument that an individual should still maintain the right to make the rest of us pay more for our insurance– while, at the same time, the rest of us shoulder the burden of health care costs for that person who just doesn’t want to contribute at all. That’s the current system. That’s why so many Americans are uninsured and uninsurable. That is why health care costs are astronomical.

The Supreme Court has, in recent years, been more than willing to put up procedural blockades for a citizen seeking judicial relief, by upending the well-established pleading standard in Twombly and Iqbal and the triumvirate of cases specifically focused on summary judgment. Most recently, in Howes v. Fields, they have also been willing to discount a citizen’s Fifth Amendment privileges against self-incrimination and the right to a Miranda warning. Indeed, during the Bush administration- beginning with Bush v. Gore- the Supreme Court consistently endorsed an expansion of judicial discretion over the rights of an individual or the appointment of a President, even when it required the Court to finesse the Constitution and even when it forced them to say, “This opinion is not precedent” (which is, unquestionably, the definition of judicial activism). If this is not evidence of judicial activism and the erosion of individual rights, I don’t know what is, and it has all occurred under a majority conservative Supreme Court.

I mention all of this in order to make the point that the Affordable Care Act is simple: The government has the right to tell people who affect the health care market that they must actually participate in the health care market, because, truth be told, they’re ALREADY participating, like it or not. We’re not reinventing the wheel here; every other industrialized country on the planet maintains a similar system.

I’ve read all of these cases during the last few months, and I’ve listened to the six hours of oral arguments. And again, it’s been mind-numbing and illuminating. I don’t think anyone can read the tea leaves. I know the so-called experts believe Anthony Kennedy will decide this case. Justice Kennedy’s questions, however tough they were against the government, also hinted at a deep skepticism and trepidation over his authority to overturn an act of Congress. And the same can be said, though to a lesser extent, of Chief Justice Roberts, who seemed to acknowledge that all Americans are in the health care “market,” which would justify the reliance on the Commerce Clause and validate the constitutionality of the individual mandate.

I think that the Justices were obligated to ask the tough questions, that anything less would have been a dereliction of their duties. They peppered the government with tough questions on an easy case. Still, it won’t be an easy decision, and keep in mind, their decisions have been erratic and inconsistent. But, at the risk of appearing like I can read the tea leaves, I think there are only two options: They either kill the entire bill 5-4 (which seems unlikely to me, given the expressed concerns about the potentiality of judicial overreach) or they reluctantly affirm the government’s position 6-3 (by way of including a ton of dicta about how to make the bill better align with the conservative policy agenda).

I commend the students who bravely spoke out against Aguillard’s remarks, and I earnestly hope that, unlike others who have dared to criticize him, they will not be reprimanded for exercising the very same First Amendment rights that he disingenuously seeks to protect. The students who spoke out against Aguillard are absolutely right, though I’d add a few things.

First, in my opinion, his leadership has been an abysmal failure: The school is now threatened with sanctions for failing to comply with its accreditation standards. According to an internal report that was leaked to the media, it now faces over thirty million dollars worth of deferred maintenance costs. (And after it was leaked, Aguillard’s response was bafflingly stupid, essentially accusing the media of a Satanic plot against him). He’s lied to the public about his courtship of the governments of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. He’s fired professors who point out his failures. And with all due respect, I am not holding my breath for his proposals for a law school and medical school; after all, the man can’t even ensure basic accreditation compliance for the undergraduate school, which should be considered his core responsibility. On top of all of that, aside from the unconfirmed gossip, Joe Aguillard’s salary has increased exponentially throughout the last few years. From SaveOurLC:

2010 (FY 8-1-2010 to 7-31-2011)
Aguillard 202,594; Quarles 115,287; Hargis 99,238; Johnson 94,957; Pack 83,995.

2009
Aguillard 190,813; Travers 100,396; Quarles 98,973; Hargis 89,337; Johnson 87,954; Pack 82,376

2008
Aguillard 179,159; Quarrels 92,640; Johnson 88,031; Hargis 88,025; Pack 80,970; Travers 46,789

2007
Aguillard 164,000; Sumrall 101,750; Quarles 93,008; Spears 92,249; Hargis 90,000; Pack 81,684; Dunn 80,800; Ferry 77,063; Packer 74,280; Campbell 71,250

2005
Aguillard 132,338; Sumrall 111,000; Quarles 90,236; Hargis 88,000; Spears 86,228; Howell 71,938; Thames 69,196; Rushing 68,059; Neal 62,368

2004
Aguillard 105,575; Townsend 90,557; Hargis 83,028; Thames 66,874; Rushing 62,360

2003
Lee 147,030; Hawkins 105,128; Townsend 89,000; Hargis 81,600; Aguillard 69,738

Aguillard has been receiving exponential payraises every single year, despite the fact that Louisiana College has continued to struggle, despite the threat of sanctions, despite those “evil” reports on deferred maintenance. Apparently, the Board at LC awards grandiosity over effectiveness. And now, Joe Aguillard’s latest ploy is to attempt to convince everyone in our community that his “faith,” which allows him and his institution the ability to receive our money, tax-free, somehow prevents women from accessing birth control medication. Every sperm is sacred, even if you can’t prove it, right?

To all the LC defenders, that’s fine. Seriously. But in fairness, there should be one precondition: No more taxpayer dollars. If this is all truly about the government infringing on your ability to practice your own religion, then, for Chistsakes, don’t take the government’s money; otherwise, when you do, you’re engaging in a taxpayer-subsidized establishment of religion, which is in contravention of the First Amendment.

Joe Aguillard needs money from all of us in order to ensure that his school operates; he can’t do it on his own. Let’s make that clear. Indeed, that is the ONLY reason why he’d threaten to shut down Louisiana College over a federal law he personally (and I believe, moronically) opposes. If he could do it on his own, why would he ever need to threaten to close the school?

I call his bluff. I think he’s nothing more than an amateur publicity hound. And I dare him: Close LC over contraception coverage in the Obamacare bill. Do it.

Guess what, Mr. Aguillard? When and if you ever do, people won’t remember your failed attempt at battling for your singular right to deny your female employees medication. Instead, they’ll remember your legacy of failure. They’ll remember the threat of academic sanctions. They’ll remember the deferred maintenance. They’ll remember when you ate a worm on camera, your bizarre antics, the rumors that have surrounded you, the fact that your salary has nearly doubled while the core institution has suffered. They’ll also remember your Board and how they not only failed the institution they swore to protect but also the expectations and hope of an entire region. They won’t remember birth control pills or the morning after pill or your non-scientific claims about the sanctity of a male orgasm (because that’s really what this is all about); they will remember your failures as a leader. So, close the school. Please, close the school. Make good on your threats. Close LC. Shut it down now. Prove your point. Go ahead.

Or, just stop taking money from the rest of us. I hear that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia pledged a bunch of money. Maybe you can ask them instead.

Still, when critics point out that three days worth of oral arguments aren’t necessary, they’re not suggesting that this case isn’t monumentally important, just that it’s cut-and-dry. And it is. Despite what opponents of President Obama’s health care reform act may suggest, the federal government has always maintained the ability to regulate significant interstate commerce. This right is enshrined in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and in decades of case law. Opponents of the individual mandate are advancing a strain of libertarian fundamentalism that has never been accepted as the rule of law in this country. They are disingenuously or perhaps myopically arguing that Americans have a fundamental right to not contribute to or participate in a system from which they derive a benefit (whether one’s ability to access health care is past, present, or future, whether it’s exercised now or guarded for later on, it exists nonetheless). It’s a rigidly ideological position that holds very little basis in reality.

Many, if not most, of the same stalwarts for non-intervention on health care argued vociferously to spend our blood and treasure on a misguided war in Iraq, a war based on false pretenses and bad intelligence, and no doubt, they also held fast to the belief that Americans who believed the war to be unjust could not merely withhold their taxes or their obligation to contribute. When it comes to national defense and security, no matter how outrageous the expense and regardless of whether we disagree with the mission, we are all obligated to contribute, for the sake of our shared security. People who, like me, opposed to Iraq War didn’t argue some fantastically laissez faire position about the constitutionality of “inaction” or advance the notion that we somehow have a right to opt out of participating when the government mandates our dollars be spent on things we ideologically oppose, whether it’s a product, an insurance package, or a couple of wars. Provided those things are mandated in order to protect either the security or the economic solvency of the nation, Americans have always understood their obligation, even if it requires shared sacrifice.

So, the argument that mandating people to participate in insurance somehow erodes the freedoms enshrined by the Constitution is nothing more than politicized hogwash. Because we all rely on the goods and services of others, we are all mandated to contribute money to the government each and every single time we buy anything. Anything. America has not and has never been the selfishness-as-virtue dystopia envisioned by Ayn Rand. Her vision of a world in which individualism reigns supreme may make for good (sorry, sub-par) fiction, but it’s baseless: Human beings are interdependent; Americans rely on the sanctity of the social contract, not only for our security but also for our economic well-being.

In the case of Obamacare, here’s what we’re facing: An expansion of health care to more than 40 million people and thus an overall reduction in spending, a decrease in average premiums, guaranteed coverage for the millions of Americans who, like me, have a pre-existing medical condition, protection for anyone under the age of 26. And at what expense? Well, a paltry 4% of big businesses that employ more than 50 people will now be obligated to provide coverage that they should have already provided (or otherwise pay a fine), and the payroll tax will slightly increase in a few years for people making more than $200,000 a year. Working-class conservative folks who just instinctually oppose everything Obama and those heathen Democrats should really pay attention to this: While your friends couch their opposition in philosophically naive rhetoric about buying “products,” while they pretend to worry about the constitutionality of requiring them to participate in a government program, the dirty little secret is: They’re mainly opposed to the rich paying slightly more in taxes in order to ensure for the health and economic security of people just like you. That’s it, in a nutshell. And to be sure, opponents of Obamacare will stop at nothing to advance their argument: They’ll distort the findings of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office; they’ll blame Obamacare for every health care-related company that has ever gone bankrupt during the last few years. It’s non-sense, of course, a manufactured excuse for the institutional incompetence.

Make no mistake: Obamacare is a good word. If you don’t believe that you are intrinsically tied to our health care system and therefore owe nothing to ensure its solvency, then, please, do the rest of us a favor: Personally reimburse each and every doctor, nurse, and hospital employee you have ever encountered since the moment of your birth, because otherwise, the rest of us still shoulder that burden.

That’s it.

That’s Goodell’s damning evidence.

Sean Payton acknowledged receiving this e-mail, which apparently was also sent to other members of the Saints organization as well, considering Orstein’s postscript wasn’t directed to Coach Payton but to Greg Williams. Williams, incidentally, has taken full responsibility for and ownership of the so-called bounty program, something he also, allegedly, employed while coaching for the Washington Redskins and the Buffalo Bills. Neither of those teams, by the way, have faced any scrutiny; no one is calling for those teams to place asterisks next to their wins. Before ever investigating whether this practice also occurred in other organizations, Goodell imposed stunningly draconian sanctions against the New Orleans Saints– and indeed, by extension, their entire fan base, specifically the City of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana, who directly subsidize the National Football League.

I don’t intend to come across as a naive apologist for Sean Payton, and I certainly don’t endorse or agree in any way, shape, or form with the bounty program– though I think it has been ridiculously overhyped by sports journalists and the media, including, most unfortunately, Jeff Duncan of The Times-Picayune. At the very least, Payton probably lied about being ignorant of Greg Williams’s conduct. But I can’t really prove that, and no matter how hard he may try, neither can Roger Goodell. Again, Goodell’s only real evidence of Payton’s complicity is that Payton received an e-mail that contained a postscript directed at one of his assistant coaches. If Goodell had more, then you better believe, he would have included it in his overly-wrought statement.

While others in the media heap praise onto Goodell for sending a strong message against the (let’s face it) token incentivization that teammates provided one another for a devastating hit against their opponents (these guys are already payed $1,500 a play and would suffer exponentially larger fines than any bounty program could pay out if they knocked out an opponent illegally), I think it is critically important that we also question the validity of the evidence Goodell used to forever tarnish the reputation of Sean Payton and the integrity of an entire organization, particularly if it can be proven that the same conduct occurred in locker rooms all over the NFL. I may be biased, but to me, Goodell is merely attempting to make an example out of a small-market team before ever seriously investigating the actions of anyone else. To be sure, unlike others, I don’t believe this is because Goodell is conspiring to prevent the Saints from a Super Bowl appearance at the Super Dome; he will, after all, have to face the music himself when he doles out the Lombardi trophy in New Orleans next year. But it’s reckless, nonetheless.

Sean Payton may be a lying jerk. He may have partied too hard after the Saints won the Super Bowl in Miami. He may have implicitly allowed players to take prescription painkillers without the requisite prescription. And he may have known about what Greg Williams was up to, when Williams allowed players on the defense to pool together money for knocking out opponents. But there is no evidence that he cheated the game of football, unlike Bill Belichick, a coach who will likely be enshrined in Canton one day. Payton didn’t negligently kill someone else after driving drunk, like Donte Stallworth. He didn’t actively participate in murdering animals, like Michael Vick. Indeed, the only direct evidence of Payton’s crime: He received an e-mail that contained a postscript directed to the person who has admitted to orchestrating and organizing the entire program.

Some have suggested that Goodell took action against the Saints in order to send a message to those currently litigating against the NFL that the league takes player safety seriously. No they don’t.

Bill Dwyre of The LA Times, in an article criticizing Goodell’s decision and questioning whether Los Angeles should ever consent to joining a league headed up by Goodell, wrote, “The proof of that will be the years it will take, after Goodell’s sanctions, to get back to where they were. Those who doubt that, google the words ‘SMU’ and ‘Death Penalty.’” Amen, Mr. Dwyre. As a current SMU student whose sister, father, grandfather, and great-grandmother, among others, also attended SMU, your analogy is spot-on. SMU’s football program was eviscerated because it was the first NCAA team to be found breaking the rules that numerous other teams were also violating at the time. We are still recovering from the death penalty imposed in the 1980s, while major market, big school teams like USC have engaged in equally egregious conduct, only to be met with a slap on the wrist.

I, for one, hope that Coach Payton sues the pants off of Roger Goodell, an emperor who is already without clothes, and I hope the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana realize that they’re not, in any way, obligated to kiss Mr. Goodell’s ring: His punitive and arbitrary actions come at the direct expense of the taxpayers of the Gret Stet of Louisiana. We don’t owe him anything. We should be suing him, individually, instead of cowering to him. Without question, Roger Goodell and the sycophants who support him are more concerned with “sending” a message than with the real effects of that message.