More of the same with Jindal?

Bloggers have been expressing their suspicions that Jindal's administration is not truly interested in ethics reform or "transparency."

Well, the bottom's fallen out. Beyond odd details and idiosyncrasies, Jindal now faces ethics charges for receiving over $100,000 in in-kind contributions (mailing expenses) from the state GOP, without reporting it. Jindal's campaign people say it was a mistake: the GOP didn't issue an invoice (so there was no knowing what the amount spent was), and there was miscommunication among the Jindal staffers. In fact, the issue only came to light because it was reported by NO resident Chris Stow-Serge.

I'm not saying this was a deliberate omission, but it looks really bad. If there is not a case of deception here, there is at least one of ineptitude on the part of Jindal's staff. It doesn't help that a citizen not involved with the campaign had to report it. It's my feeling that this was a genuine oversight--truly, $100,000 in a $12-million campaign is a drop in the bucket, and it's not that bad of a thing to cover up anyway. Certainly not risking your campaign of "ethics" over. I'm not saying that Jindal and/or his crew don't commit other improprieties, but it doesn't make sense that they would take this particular (unnecessary) risk for such small return. In any case, it will probably be a big blow to his credibility. As the writer of Library Chronicles points out in one of the links above, it's made worse by being exactly what Jindal is supposed to be against, like conservative congressmen who get elected on "family values" and are caught in sex scandals.

Perhaps a more unsettling question is whether this kind of oversight/carelessness is the character of Louisiana politics. Maybe it's not always corruption but often ineptitude, irresponsibility, apathy. If that is the case, I think we have a harder fight ahead of ourselves to clean up our act. That sort of problem, in my opinion, is more insidious and difficult to remedy--more of an institutional problem--than deliberate wrongdoing by particular individuals.

Read More...

AP article on oil canals

The AP has just written a piece on the effect oil canals have had on the wetlands. I'm glad to have come across this, because 1) many people don't know about their impact, or even--especially on a national level--about the wetlands in general; and 2) it frames the wetlands in terms of their importance as protection against hurricanes, which, while only one of the arguments for their existence, may help in their preservation. I hope this story gets a lot of circulation since it's AP.

But the industry's legacy is getting new attention. Some contrast record petroleum profits with staggering cost estimates - up to $60 billion - to save New Orleans and restore the delta. In 2006, major U.S. oil companies, some of which moved offices from New Orleans to Houston, earned about $162 billion.

Meanwhile, locals increasingly ask why oil shouldn't be made to clean up its profitable mess the same as mining operations had to do in Appalachia.

Yeah, let's get some press here.

I'm sad to read this, though:

For now, the oil companies are winning the public relations battle, in part by spending $5 million on a marketing campaign called America's Wetland. "Tell Washington to shore up America's energy coast. It fuels the nation," one TV ad implores, calling on Congress to spend the money it will take to restore the delta. Nowhere is oil's responsibility mentioned.

Ugh. I just donated money to them. Well, now I know. If the money still goes to the wetlands, even if it lets the oil companies dodge blame, that is what matters most. Accountability would be nice but seeing the wetlands saved is most important. And to America's Wetland's credit, it is (or at least should be) a national issue, not just a state one.

Read More...

Ron Paul support

Today Ron Paul came here to speak; I didn't go, but it prompts me to talk about the support he enjoys on the LSU campus, where political awareness/activism usually doesn't ramp up until just before the general election.

This seeming support is strange to me, since his central platform is devolving what are currently federal responsibilities to the states, and we are a state that just elected a governor based on his claims that he'll clean up a corrupt and inefficient government. In other words, a lot of good it will do for us to do things on our own when we obviously have little or no confidence in ourselves to do it right. And, assuming Jindal is willing and able to set things straight with our state government, it will take time.

Personally, I'm not sure that his idea is so great for us; for instance, while I am against No Child Left Behind and "teaching exams," I don't know if isolating ourselves educationally (for example) will be the best thing to enable our students to compete nationally. Or, there are times when we might need the help of our neighbors; coastal subsidence and erosion is an example. Besides being too large for us to handle alone--a $14 billion price tag over 50 years--it is truly an issue that affects other states besides ours. So does that mean we should foot the bill alone? If California or New York were losing 25 square miles per year (say, to a foreign invader), would the rest of us consider it solely the problem of those states? (His environmental policies, by the way, are based upon protection of private property. That's not enough here.)

He is from one of the richest states, Texas, and a believer in free market above all to boot, so it stands to reason that he would want to cut off the poorer states to decline so that the richer ones could grow richer.

I feel that his support lies chiefly in claims of lower taxes and protection of civil liberties. No one likes paying high taxes, and few will argue against civil liberties. But taxes are the price of living in a civilized society. And frankly, if you want to continue getting services from the government (whether federal or state), you'll have to keep paying them. I guess where he would have us come out ahead is in getting rid of welfare, which is something he and I flat-out disagree on.

Otherwise, people seem to like him for being libertarian and a "constitutionalist," but I find him fairly inconsistent in those areas. Sure, he's libertarian--except when in it comes to abortion, in which case he is pro-life (that is to say, restrictive of women's rights). He also feels that the federal government is too hostile towards religion, when in fact secularism is what protects the non-Christian minority. As for being constitutionalist, i.e. strictly adhering to the Constitution, he has always tooted that horn--except that he wants to amend it so that citizenship isn't automatic to people born in the US (which, good policy or not, contradicts an amendment of the Constitution; and might I remind that the Bill of Rights are also amendments). While I'm not questioning his sincerity on these or other issues, the labels applied to him (by himself or others), or even generalizations made about his beliefs, should not necessarily be accepted as true. He is just as prone to logical pitfalls and contradictions as any other candidate.

I feel that Paul makes some good points, and that we do need people like him shouting at us and our government for change. But I don't think he should be President. And writing from the perspective of this blog, I don't think he is what we, a state that is sadly weak--and not (entirely) because of our federal government--need right now.

Read More...

LSU Chancellor O'Keefe resigning

Sean O'Keefe has announced his resignation, to take place officially on February 1st. This came as a surprise to many a few weeks ago. He's been relatively mum about it, implying only that he doesn't have "the full confidence of the Board and the president." In an interview with 2theadvocate, he had a very diplomatic and even positive attitude about it, saying he has always been ready to resign should the board want him to. But:

O'Keefe: So this is a very good time, I think, to move forward, given a new president, a new opportunity, I think, to look at leadership for the University. It elected to move forward in that regard, and I am perfectly willing to do so.

Q: What do you think they're looking for that you didn't bring to the table?

O'Keefe: I have no idea.

He goes on to talk about the things he's done at LSU, including Forever LSU and the Flagship Agenda. He dodged a question about whether it was for political reasons: "This isn't about me, it's about LSU."

The most feasible explanation to me is that, as suggested to me by a friend, he was initially hired only for his ability to bring in money--not for experience in education administration--and that this ability was thanks to his ties with the Bush administration. Now that the Bush regime is in decline, members of the board see that he has outstayed his political usefulness. Whatever the case, the board doesn't want to discuss it.

Response has been varied. A group of boosters took out a full-page ad in the Advocate claiming that they'll stop donations if O'Keefe leaves (this seems like bluffing to me--stop supporting their tigers?). The Faculty Senate reportedly has "mixed feelings." And the Mustache Advocacy Network is/was "fighting" for him.

Read More...

Updates

I've starting adding links on the right, especially for some Louisiana blogs (thanks Rosalind!). Obviously I'm far from done with that, but it's a start. Also, I added "Read more..." funcionality; thanks to Ramani of Hackosphere for that. Tweaked the colors so that visited links are no longer hard-to-read gray. If anyone has suggestions for the layout, feel free to let me know. Does the body need to be wider? (It looks narrow to me, but I'm using a widescreen monitor with fairly high resolution.) Does it need more colors?

Read More...

More BR loop meetings

The Advocate* reports that community meetings will continue on the loop--which comes as no surprise--to be held in late February and early March in the parishes around here. These types of meetings have gone on for several months, in a process of presenting information to the public and receiving feedback in order to eliminate choices from the possible routes. Most recently, the routes in the area of Port Vincent and French Settlement have been eliminated to preserve those areas, which are claimed by Ascension Parish to be historically important. (Personally, I don't know enough about these areas yet to agree or disagree... anyone care to shed some light on that?)

Everyone in Baton Rouge has heard of the loop. For those who live elsewhere, it's a highway project that will split off from I-10 and I-12 east of BR, traveling west, to circumvent the city to the south and north respectively, cross the Mississippi (at new bridges), then join back up with I-10. The goal is that traffic on the interstate that doesn't need to pass through BR will take one of the bypasses so that area residents will have to deal with less congestion.

5-parish area with interior and exterior limits of project.

Of course, the root of the problem is that people who live in and around BR use the interstate to get around town, not to mention that the city has developed in such a way that everything is spread out and people in suburbs need to travel some distance to get to work (or the mall, etc.). Furthermore, this development wasn't centrally planned, so things don't always connect well, intersections are not necessarily well-designed, and so on. We refer to "using surface streets" as the alternative way of getting around, say when traffic is really bad on the interstate. So our section of the interstate system has been (unnecessarily?) burdened poor urban planning. Combine this with recent population growth--including a post-Katrina surge of something like 20,000 (according to the state) to 50,000 (according to EBR city-parish)--and demographic trends of suburbanization, and our traffic has really become a mess.

Many people support the loop, but it is hardly uncontroversial. I'm not sure how to feel about it, myself, but I hardly think there are many other feasible options. On the one hand, it should divert a lot of traffic, especially 18-wheelers, and relieve some of our congestion. On the other hand, it's slated to take 8-10 years to develop at a cost of $4 billion. That's a long time to wait, and a lot of money to spend--is it worth it? Furthermore, it seems to me that the process of route planning has been fraught with NIMBYs, many of whom are in support of the loop but don't want it near them. It's hard to blame them; I would probably feel the same way. The residents of Hoo Shoo Too Road, as an example provided by the BR Business Report, moved to the swampy area on the Amite River precisely for a closeness to nature that the loop would disrupt.

Possible corridors, with eliminated areas in red.

By the way, the loop is slated to be funded by toll roads, something unprecedented in Louisiana (to my knowledge) that I don't think will go over well.

Of course, the best solution--and one that would be very obvious to residents of other cities--would be investment in public transportation infrastructure and then greater use of it by residents. The bus system as it exists now is judged as deeply inadequate by many, reportedly running very late (bad traffic doesn't help!). But if there could be more buses, routes, stops, and so on, we would have something much better--or hell, a light rail system would be great. The problem with this is that our culture down here is extremely resistant to the idea of public transportation. Seemingly everyone is attached to their SUV/truck/car and the sense of independence that it gives, gas prices be damned. Even if there were vocal support for public transportation, it would probably be with the hope that more other people used it, leaving the roads clear. So basically, barring a huge cultural shift (caused by prohibitively high gas prices?), solving this problem through public transportation is, sadly, not feasible. Technically possible, but culturally incompatible.

So we are stuck with the loop, for better or worse. It's my feeling that the city's policymakers, from a pragmatic perspective, really have no other choice--they can't do nothing about traffic, nor can they realistically try to fix it with public transportation (it would be the end of their careers and ultimately a poor investment). I imagine that, once it's finally built, it will help, but more as a stopgap measure than as a relatively permanent, sustainable strategy. After all, it will clear up the interstate around BR some, but what about all of our other traffic problems? College, Essen, Perkins, and Bluebonnet aren't part of the interstate. The outlook for our transportation system is pretty grim, with money being so short (see the GBRBR article linked above).

So is there something to do with large-scale impact besides the loop or better public transport that would fix our traffic? Is the loop necessary? Is improved public transportation [that gets used] a more feasible idea than I make it out to be? Should this money be spent differently?

* In this blog, "The Advocate" will always refer to the Baton Rouge newspaper rather than the well-known magazine, unless explicitly stated.

Read More...

NOAA administrator to speak at LSU

On Tuesday, Jan. 22 at 3:00 PM, Conrad Lautenbacher, Undersecretary of commerce of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) is going to speak at LSU about "building coastal resiliency" in Louisiana. The term "coastal resiliency" makes me think of barrier islands in particular, but it's not clear what exactly he'll be discussing. Anyway, I think it's worth going, because the loss of the wetlands is Louisiana's single biggest issue (more on that later). The talk will take place in the Dalton J. Woods auditorium of the Energy Coast and Environment Building off the Nicholson Extension. It's free and open to the public.

Read More...

Hello

Hello, and welcome to this new blog, whose focus will be news, politics, culture, social issues, etc. in Lousiana with a bias towards Baton Rouge--not because it's more important than other parts of the state (which it isn't), but because it's where I am. Part of my agenda, though, will be to learn more about other areas.

I'm writing this blog for several reasons. First, I want there to be more dialog about local issues and goings-on. I feel that in our consumption of mass media (and consequent adoption of U.S. cultural, political, and social homogeneity), we tend to focus on national events to the detriment of local ones. This seems especially true of politics. I want this blog to be a place to discuss and/or debate these things, to get more local discourse going. Hopefully I'll meet some great folks, too.

Second, this will be a place for me to collect my thoughts as I learn. I have only recently developed state pride (more on that later) and therefore a genuine, deep concern for what goes on here. I'm not writing as an expert but as someone who's learning as they go. My real hope for this blog is that commenters more knowledgeable than myself contribute, and expand my understanding.

Third, I hope the blog will motivate me to stay abreast of what's going on, and keep exploring the many interesting facets, present and past, of this state. In the past I've tried to follow the (national) news but ended up distracted by other things (school work in particular) or just feeling apathetic. Also, while news outlets usually don't provide context well (only particulars of specific events), I'm hoping that this way I'll be able to fit things into a larger picture.

Finally, I feel motivated by a streak of activism. I'll say up-front that I'm a liberal, but I'm not here to play partisan politics--call it regional politics, I guess. By having discussions and perhaps even alerting readers to things they didn't know, we (by which I mean me and whoever comments) might fuel some small amount of local awareness and even political will (a lofty goal, I know). Despite all of our differences, we have to stick up for our state, ourselves, and each other, because no one else will.


As for format, I plan to follow and comment on news stories, write reviews of relevant books/films/etc., feature ongoing issues (e.g. the wetlands), and perhaps post my own general thoughts, observations, and questions for discussion. At worst, this will be a collection of notes as I learn and follow events; at best it will be a forum for discussion that fuels thought for everyone involved. Finally, I want to express my desire to understand different perspectives rather than condemn them--so I certainly welcome everyone, in- or out-of-state, whatever their viewpoints are. Welcome!

Read More...