CenLamar: On Life in Louisiana

I’ve never met the blogger who refers to himself as WeSawThat (yes, news alert, it’s actually HeSawThat), but I do know his name. And during the past couple of years, we’ve shared various observations with one another via e-mail. He sends me blog traffic every single day, and I send him traffic every day as well.

Sometimes, his blog is highly entertaining, and sometimes, it is incredibly (almost hyperbolically) offensive. I understand he thinks that he has developed a persona.

I don’t like to get involved with blog wars, but his latest rant about the Tulane Legislative Scholarship is beyond the pale for a few reasons. But before I get into that, let’s discuss the larger story:

I work for a guy who understands the importance of the new media and the Internet. When he was first elected, he wanted to at least introduce himself to members of this new media. Government transparency should always extend itself to the blogosphere, but in order for that to occur, bloggers have to be willing to take the initiative to do their homework, conduct their interviews, and sometimes, even file for public information requests, particularly in a small City with only one newspaper.

On numerous occasions, WeSawThat has been invited for personal sit-down meetings with the Mayor. He has been encouraged to file for public records requests. And he has consistently refused or simply ignored those invitations.

He operates in the conspiratorial underbelly of American politics– the Jeff Renses and Larry Sinclairs of the world. It’s sensational entertainment, information disconnected from the vast body of knowledge and constructed on cherry-picked ignorance– and sometimes, flat-out lies and patently ridiculous distortions.

He doesn’t trust the government. He seems to loathe nearly every elected politician in the State, regardless of party affiliation or ideology. And while this may drive traffic toward his doorstep, it’s not exactly a constructive conversation; actually, the vast majority of his posts contain zero comments from outside readers.

Here’s the problem: It’s perfectly appropriate and acceptable to be skeptical of government and politicians, as long as that skepticism is grounded in objective facts. The irony about WeSawThat is that he constantly reminds people not to trust the corporate media (something he and I can usually agree on), yet, whenever the so-called local “corporate media” reports on local political stories, he tends to bite hook, line, and sinker.

Government can only become open and transparent if government watchdogs actually take the initiative- whether through phone calls, e-mails, or sit-down meetings– to ensure for accountability. You’re not a watchdog if your entire opinion is predicated on what you read in the newspaper that morning.

Which brings me back to the Tulane Legislative Scholarship:

WeSawThat apparently located a document from a former Tulane professor that lists the names of all of the teenage high school students who were selected for the Tulane Legislative Scholarships. Perhaps it is appropriate to discuss whether or not our legislators should be determining which students receive this stipend, though, in my opinion, this is just silliness. Regardless, WeSawThat felt it appropriate to impugn the validity of a scholarship awarded to Laney Sansing by Chris Roy, Jr. On its face, given the media fixation on the attorney/client relationship between Jacques Roy and Sam Sansing, Laney’s father, I can understand his initial skepticism. But hold on, we’re talking about impugning a teenager’s academic record– implying that her scholarship was somehow nepotism is to suggest that she was undeserving. Moreover, WeSawThat does not live in Alexandria, has never met or spoken with Chris or Jacques Roy, has never met or spoken with Sam Sansing, has never met, spoken with, or reviewed the academic resume of Laney Sansing, and, correct me if I am wrong, has never filed a single public records request in his entire blogging career.

He may be entertaining. He may sometimes be scandalous. On local news, however, he is often purposely and recklessly hyperbolic. He simply doesn’t ever take the time to know what he’s talking about, nor does he care to find out. Because, I suppose, he enjoys his anonymity.

Laney Sansing graduated as valedictorian of her class. I know this because I attended Menard’s graduation ceremonies last night. Laney and I don’t know each other, but I happen to know at least four teachers at Menard. No one disputes her merits.

That’s why I was compelled to address this specific story. You shouldn’t drag a teenager’s name and reputation into your own public political rants without- at least- giving him or her the opportunity to provide context. Now, any time someone searches for this young girl’s name, they’ll stumble upon a page that essentially calls her into question. It’s simply unfair for her. She’s not a politician or a public official. She’s a bright, young woman preparing to enter college.

And had he taken the time to consult with Chris Roy, Jr. about his decision-making process, he’d find that Ms. Sansing was one of only a handful of applicants within his district and that, in his opinion, she was clearly the most deserving, given her status as valedictorian and all of her other accomplishments. He would also discover that Chris Roy, Jr.’s decision was not based on patronage; it was based on her merits. Chris Roy, Jr. has never been “close family friends” with the Sansings. They only met within the past three or four years– and only because Mr. Sansing was one of his brother’s clients.

Instead of actually doing his homework, WeSawThat went for the cheap and quick political hit.

I would hope that one day he will find the courage and tenacity to reveal his true identity and attempt to actually participate in the process and join the community– truly holding government accountable by requesting interviews, writing e-mail inquiries (even easier), and filing public records requests.

Until then, I hope he will at least attempt to open the lines of communication before publicly impugning local people based on tortured interpretations of media snippets and a refusal to actually engage, even when he’s invited.

Despite the Republican Party’s best efforts, including the recruitment of Dick Cheney (who apparently spoke to a noticeably underwhelming crowd at a small convention center in Northern Mississippi), Democrat Travis Childers beat Republican Greg Davis in yet another race the Republicans were supposed to win.

Anyone notice a pattern?

From The New York Times:

“[T[he Republican strategy of trying to link Mr. Childers to more liberal national Democratic figures fell short, as it did in Louisiana. Indeed, voters here were bombarded by advertisements equating Mr. Childers with Senator Barack Obama, a tactic intended to turn conservative whites away from Mr. Childers and which some politicians said played on white racial resentments… In the end, tying the white Democrat to the black presidential candidate may have helped Mr. Childers more than it hurt him, as campaign aides reported heavy black turnout, heavier than in a vote three weeks ago when he came within 400 votes of winning.”

Kudos to The Daily Kingfish for being selected as the State’s official blog for the Democratic National Convention.

A couple of weeks ago, Ryan and I decided to join forces, anticipating that we may have been competing against one another for the same spot.

So, along with Ryan from Baton Rouge, this means two Central Louisianans will be reporting live from the convention floor–yours truly and Daniel T. Smith.

More than likely, updates will be posted at The Daily Kingfish, and then reposted right here.

The convention is in August, and it promises to be an imminently fascinating experience.

Stay tuned.

I moved back to Alexandria during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. My mother had been operating a residential property management company, which she essentially inherited from my father, who passed away four years prior.

For several months, she was overwhelmed with phone calls from people who needed places to live, which we were able to accommodate, because the turn-over rate was so high.

I hadn’t possessed any intention of moving back to Alexandria. I was working in Houston, and at the time, I was considering applying for positions in Los Angeles. In fact, like many in my generation, I often told people that I would never return to Alexandria.

I wasn’t being arrogant or dismissive about my hometown. My generation is simply more transient, more prone to recognizing the limitless geography provided to us by air travel, more adept at adapting to new environments, more technologically-savvy (and relatedly, more connected to one another), and more curious about the “outside world” because of this. I wanted to be somewhere else because I recognized how easy it would be to be somewhere else– and because, let’s face it: Alexandria was not (and maybe still isn’t) appealing to young people.

But I came back. And I’m not trying to sound heroic or anything; the situation worked itself out for me. It made financial sense, and I knew I was needed. Plus, even though I can live independently, I can drive myself to work, and I can walk without support, I still have a very mild physical disability, so it helps to be around friends and family.

That said, I definitely had a tinge of resentment about Alexandria.

My father died when I was a teenager. He was an alcoholic who was diagnosed with and treated for bipolar disorder; he had been in and out of rehab on three separate occasions. He was always completely earnest in his attempts for recovery, but he had a debilitating psychological and chemical disorder that– despite his intelligence and his charisma– prevented him from recovering.

I know this may sound strange: But two weeks before he died, I knew he was going to die. It wasn’t some strange psychic phenomenon; I knew because I watched him, painfully, devolve.

His death, the result of a single car accident, was the lead story on the local news, and it was on the front page of the paper the next day. For reasons I could not understand then, as a teenager, my father’s death was a news story. People called into talk radio about him. The Town Talk requested pictures of the accident, toxicology reports, and even pictures of his corpse, and when my family sued to prevent the potential publication of this, they ran a story about us, essentially impugning his widow and her teenage children for demanding privacy over the untimely and tragic death of my father– who was a private citizen. (And I mean no offense to the current leadership and staff of The Town Talk, recognizing full well that the current “administration,” if you will, was not involved in any of these editorial or legal decisions). Obviously, it deeply hurt and offended me; it felt as if some were attempting to take a private tragedy and turn it into a sensational news story.

My father was a remarkable and exceptional person. He was valedictorian of his high school class, quarterback for the football team, and when he went to college, he was renowned as the top graduate in real estate. After college, with the help of his father, he started his own company, eventually employing more than fifty people. And I also understand that his success is why his death became news, though I will never understand the newspaper’s prerogative.

For me, the entire thing was very personal, which is why I resisted returning to Alexandria.

Plus, Alexandria seemed stagnant, complacent, and petty– a stubborn small town that refused to grow up and adapt. This was reinforced by a media of outsiders, people who reported on Alexandria but never learned to love Alexandria. There were no Edgar McCormicks– true champions of the City who preached about possibilities, not limitations. But there were plenty of people hoping to make a name for themselves by fanning the flames, both in the media and in the private sector.

Thankfully, throughout the past three years, I have learned to love Alexandria and its opportunities. I have learned to celebrate its assets and its potential, and I have learned that Alexandrians are some of the best, most civic-minded, and most progressive people in this nation– despite whatever impression one may have after reading the newspaper and its online forums.

We face many challenges ahead of us, including, importantly, how to address the voices of cynicism, skepticism, and blind-sighted ideology that have prevented us from truly capitalizing on our assets and realizing our potential.

But thankfully, I believe there are far more of us who believe in progressive and, when needed, aggressive change.

Notice the landmarks: Lea’s Pies, Lyod Hall, Swamp Daddy’s, the Kent House, Lou and Laura’s, and Tunks.

Who’s that guy laughing at Tunks? Why, it’s Alexandria Mayor Jacques Roy.

Sunday’s Town Talk featured a letter from local retired businessman Joseph Appalucci (here) promoting once again casino gaming as a the economic boon our downtown area needs. I thought I’d mention this because it’s a topic that comes up with pretty much the same pros and cons listed over and over again. This idea is floated probably every 3 months or so in the TT and much more often outside of the regular media and it brings up some interesting points that merit local discussion.

Firstly, there is the logical supporting argument for casino gaming:

1. It works. In similar communities in our region who have dealt with similarly derelict parts of their cities which had no solid economic engine, Casinos provided the stimulus needed to promote desired growth. They have been used to revitalize Shreveport, Bossier City, Biloxy, Gulfport, Natchez, Lake Charles, Vicksburg, Kenner, Harvey, and any other number of communities.

2. Tax Dollars. Casino gaming brings in millions in otherwise unavailable tax revenue. Even in communties like Marksville or Kinder where gaming is controlled by independent Native American Tribes, the amount of tax revenue directly contributed to the local governments has made for an absolute transformation of the tax base and provided much needed funding for schools and infrastructure.

3. Add-on Businesses. Casinos bring in people who not normally visit an area. Most of their patrons are rarely locals. These people bring in their own money to spend at the casino, but also stay in local hotels that would otherwise be unoccupied, eat at local restaurants, buy local fuel, shop in local stores. In every area in our region with casino gaming this has resulted in the opening of new businesses and the economic revitalization of the areas serving the casinos. These are generally non-gaming related businesses that again the local economy could not support alone.

4. Economic Impact. Along with bringing in new businesses, and especially with bringing in new customers, casinos generally raise area wages which helps grow the local economy in general. One of the primary problems of our region is the high number of minimum-wage jobs. The minimum wage even in its new $7 per hour form is laughable and has been for years. Back in 1998 I worked on a study that showed the living wage for Cenla was $14 per hour based on a 40-hour week. That’s twice the soon-to-be minimum wage and that was back when gas was $1 and milk was $2.50. Casinos generally pay their employees considerably more than minimum wage, and then other businesses (many who are national and pay much more for the same employees elsewhere) then must compete for those in the labor pool. It doesn’t hurt business, but it does help out our poorest workers.

5. Cultural Impact. Because casinos need to draw people into their gaming floors they often host concerts, sporting events, and other activities that their host communities fail to provide on their own. If you doubt this simply check the local listings for ticketmaster. The big name performers are at Paragon Casino, not the Coliseum. In addition more funding and funds available within the community mean that that community can support things like museums, theme parks, etc. Then there are ancillary benefits. For example Biloxi is home to a Campus of Tulane University. It was funded initially by a joint effort of the Gulf Coast casinos. They wanted a place to train casino workers and in return Biloxi gets access to the resources of Louisiana’s top university. With three casinos in the metro area and two more on their way to Natchez 35 minutes away, there is no reason we shouldn’t be exploring a similar relationship.

Then there are the opposing arguments:

1. Casinos cause an increase in crime. Although I’m not trying to sound like a pro-gambling person, I have to point out that there has never been one legitimate study that has supported this theory. In fact, in every community in the region with gaming, crime has dramatically decreased consistently since the arrival of casinos. This is most likely due to the increase in quality of life and opportunity for the regions’ poorest residents. Several studies have however shown that as economic opportunity increases crime decreases. This has been the case in New Orleans as the incident levels of crime int he areas surrounding the Casino have decreased consistently since its opening.

2. Locals will spend all their money. Again, statistics show that Casino patrons tend to be by and large out of state visitors. Even so, with Marksville 18 miles south, Creola across the city limits, Natchez 35 minutes east, Kinder 35 minutes southwest, and Opelousas 45 minutes south access to gaming is a moot point. If people want to give their money to casinos in Cenla, they certainly can and will do it.

3. People here don’t want Casinos. Again despite the very vocal moral minority which seems more interested in creating an new puritanism than anything else, the popularity and long-term viability of gaming in our region seems to show that both locals and visitors do indeed want Casinos and will support them.

———————-

The way this debate usually goes is someone says the thing we need in downtown Alexandria is a Casino be it riverboat or land-based. Usually within seconds that person is being lambasted and crucified for having the audacity to mention the idea. Most of the time this assault is led from the pulpit of a handful of local churches who despite the small percentage of local support they receive feel they are somehow the powerhouses of local political and cultural thought. Logic, research, and true needs quickly go out the window and by the end of the day a ton of biblical references are quoted and the person (and any supporters) is condemned to hell along with gays, drinkers, democrats and PhD candidates.

There is one thing I did notice however about some of the comments regarding this most recent letter. People here, even those who oppose gambling, drinking, music and books based on some religious premis do want to have all the things Casino gaming would bring to the area.

They want strong anchors in downtown. They want cultural and recreational venues. They want restaurants and theatres, hotels, tourists — all the things those other cities with casinos now have but didn’t in the past. But, they want us to have it all without gaming.

So I ask you, how?

Seriously, how do we get a theme park, water park, restaurants, etc? How do we get our wages off the minimum wage? How do we bring in major acts and entertainers? How do we increase our tax base without taxing our local population?

There may be an answer somewhere hiding behind the formula for cold fusion and affordable hydrogen cars, but so far we haven’t managed to find it.

We have however watched as our neighbors have prospered with the assistance of gaming in their communities.

So, do we allow the status quo to continue, or is it time to bring Casino gaming back up for a vote? Perhaps we should have our legislative delegation promote opening select locations in Rapides to land-based gaming like was done with Harrah’s in New Orleans. It would be a great core component of a new Hot Wells resort. Riverboats would provide a great customer draw for the Bentley and Holiday Inn hotels.

It’s worth more than just talking about this idea.

A few days ago, Mandeville Republican and rare coin dealer Paul Hollis announced his candidacy for the United States Senate on — fittingly– CoinNews.net, referring to himself as “nationally-known,” which will definitely prove to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Hollis will be challenging John N. Kennedy, who he refers to as a “perennial candidate,” for the Republican nomination, the winner of which will face Senator Mary Landrieu in the fall.

Hollis describes himself in the third person (The article was posted by Paul Hollis Rare Coins):

Hollis began collecting coins at the age of six after receiving a Peace dollar from his grandmother. In recent years, millions of viewers watched him on air when he hosted “The Coin Vault” television program on the Shop at Home network, and he also is known by many collectors and dealers from his earlier work as chief numismatist at Blanchard and Company in New Orleans.

Paul, I hate to break it to you, but “The Coin Vault” was not exactly nationally known or popular, which is probably why it was canceled in 2006. (It took me awhile to figure this out, as a Google search for “The Coin Vault” yields few topical results).

This primary election will be about the most important issues facing Louisiana (right?), which is why Hollis’s campaign committee features so many notable numismatists (right?):

A number of prominent numismatists are on his campaign committee, such as John Albanese, Jeff Garrett, Paul Montgomery and Douglas Winter.

I wonder what he thinks about the gold standard.

Apparently, Hollis will be officially announcing later this week, but the opening shots have been fired… on CoinNews.

Humid Haney featured his own “Beware the Terrible Simplifiers” post, in which he transcribes Bill Moyer’s entire remark on Jeremiah Wright. After reading the comment thread– and discovering the way in which at least one Republican feels about the implications of this story, I decided to add in my two cents. I’ve been wanting to follow-up on this story, considering I’ve posted about it twice in the past. Plus, with the amount of time the media has spent superficially covering the story, it’s worth some in-depth discussion.

This is what I said to “Chaz,” the conservative-leaning blogger on Humid Haney’s site (to provide some context, Chaz impugned Bill Moyers for having the audacity to speak his mind on public television, which I suppose he believes should be the exclusive province of pro-administration talking heads):

Bill Moyers deserves to be applauded for his insightful and honest assessment of this issue and all of its contradictions and nuances. As Chaz proves, the right intends to raise this issue throughout the campaign. To be sure, any response will be considered an admission of Wright’s “merits,” an attempt to trap Obama into discussing sound bites of his former pastor ad naseum.

Indeed, the use of this issue is actually a subtle way of scaring white Americans, many of whom refuse to acknowledge that numerous white politicians, including Senator McCain, have established close relationships with incendiary and controversial religious figures and most of whom have absolutely no knowledge, let alone experience, of African-American Christian churches. (That said, I am not implying Wright somehow “speaks” for everyone, though he claims to do so).

In Obama’s case, I tend to agree with Reverend August Thompson, an African-American Catholic priest here in Central Louisiana, who said that Obama likely associated with Wright in order to understand what was occurring in the African-American community. Obama, after all, is biracial and was raised by his white mother and his white grandparents. In his book Dreams of My Father, he writes about his struggles with and ultimate acceptance of his racial identity. Perhaps this is something most white Americans cannot appreciate or with which they cannot empathize, but it is certainly an important part of Mr. Obama’s life. And it should be respected and understood.

Chaz, I understand your perspective and your cold, hardball analysis, but I think that the more voters learn about Obama’s life– his narrative– the more people realize that it’s ludicrous, stupid, and simplistic to imply he and Wright share the same beliefs, that it’s self-evident Mr. Obama loves his country and any affront to his patriotism is dirty politics, and that American religious life is as complicated a discourse as American race relations.

People are actually watching this election. They’re informing themselves. And they’re well-versed in the ways Republicans attempt to win national elections.

Let’s talk about the real issues– the War in Iraq, our dependence on foreign oil, renewable energy, health care, our education system, our economy.

Why are our politics so predisposed toward the simplistic and sensational? We’re electing someone to direct this country’s policies; this isn’t just any ordinary media spectacle.

This is what Bill Moyers said (H/t Humid Haney):

I once asked a reporter back from Vietnam, “Who’s telling the truth over there?” “Everyone,” he said. “Everyone sees what’s happening through the lens of their own experience.” That’s how people see Jeremiah Wright. In my conversation with him on this broadcast a week ago and in his dramatic public appearances since, he revealed himself to be far more complex than the sound bites that propelled him onto the public stage. Over 2000 of you have written me about him, and your opinions vary widely. Some sting: “Jeremiah Wright is nothing more than a race-hustling, American hating radical,” one viewer wrote. A “nut case,” said another. Others were far more were sympathetic to him.

Many of you have asked for some rational explanation for Wright’s transition from reasonable conversation to shocking anger at the National Press Club. A psychologist might pull back some of the layers and see this complicated man more clearly, but I’m not a psychologist. Many black preachers I’ve known — scholarly, smart, and gentle in person — uncorked fire and brimstone in the pulpit. Of course I’ve known many white preachers like that, too.

But where I grew up in the south, before the civil rights movement, the pulpit was a safe place for black men to express anger for which they would have been punished anywhere else; a safe place for the fierce thunder of dignity denied, justice delayed. I think I would have been angry if my ancestors had been transported thousands of miles in the hellish hole of a slave ship, then sold at auction, humiliated, whipped, and lynched. Or if my great-great grandfather had been but three-fifths of a person in a constitution that proclaimed, “We the people.” Or if my own parents had been subjected to the racial vitriol of Jim Crow, Strom Thurmond, Bull Connor, and Jesse Helms. Even so, the anger of black preachers I’ve known and heard about and reported on was, for them, very personal and cathartic.

That’s not how Jeremiah Wright came across in those sound bites or in his defiant performances this week. What white America is hearing in his most inflammatory words is an attack on the America they cherish and that many of their sons have died for in battle, forgetting that black Americans have fought and bled beside them, and that Wright himself has a record of honored service in the Navy. Hardly anyone took the “chickens come home to roost” remark to convey the message that intervention in the political battles of other nations is sure to bring retaliation in some form, which is not to justify the particular savagery of 9/11 but to understand that actions have consequences. My friend Bernard Weisberger, the historian, says, yes, people are understandably seething with indignation over Wright’s absurd charge that the United States deliberately brought an HIV epidemic into being. But it is a fact, he says, that within living memory the U.S. Public Health Service conducted a study that deliberately deceived black men with syphilis into believing that they were being treated, while actually letting them die for the sake of a scientific test. Does this excuse Wright’s anger? His exaggerations or distortions? You’ll have to decide or yourself. At least it helps me to understand the why of them.

But in this multimedia age the pulpit isn’t only available on Sunday mornings. There’s round the clock media — the beast whose hunger is never satisfied, especially for the fast food with emotional content. So the preacher starts with rational discussion and after much prodding throws more and more gasoline on the fire that will eventually consume everything it touches. He had help — people who for their own reasons set out to conflate the man in the pulpit who wasn’t running for president with the man in the pew who was.

Behold the double standard: John McCain sought out the endorsement of John Hagee, the war-mongering Catholic-bashing Texas preacher who said the people of New Orleans got what they deserved for their sins. But no one suggests McCain shares Hagee’s delusions, or thinks AIDS is God’s punishment for homosexuality. Pat Robertson called for the assassination of a foreign head of state and asked God to remove Supreme Court justices, yet he remains a force in the Republican religious right. After 9/11 Jerry Falwell said the attack was God’s judgment on America for having been driven out of our schools and the public square, but when McCain goes after the endorsement of the preacher he once condemned as an agent of intolerance, the press gives him a pass.

Jon Stewart recently played a tape from the Nixon White House in which Billy Graham talks in the oval office about how he has friends who are Jewish, but he knows in his heart that they are undermining America. This is crazy; this is wrong — white preachers are given leeway in politics that others aren’t.

Which means it is all about race, isn’t it? Wright’s offensive opinions and inflammatory appearances are judged differently. He doesn’t fire a shot in anger, put a noose around anyone’s neck, call for insurrection, or plant a bomb in a church with children in Sunday school. What he does is to speak his mind in a language and style that unsettle some people, and says some things so outlandish and ill-advised that he finally leaves Obama no choice but to end their friendship. We are often exposed us to the corroding acid of the politics of personal destruction, but I’ve never seen anything like this, this wrenching break between pastor and parishioner before our very eyes. Both men no doubt will carry the grief to their graves. All the rest of us should hang our heads in shame for letting it come to this in America, where the gluttony of the non-stop media grinder consumes us all and prevents an honest conversation on race. It is the price we are paying for failing to heed the great historian Jacob Burckhardt, who said “beware the terrible simplifiers.”

And since I have the time and the space, there are other terrible simplifications that should be addressed:

We don’t chose our own names.

Occasionally, I am confronted by the privileges and the baggage of being named after my father, who passed away when I was a teenager. It can be both a curse and a blessing. In Obama’s case, as he writes in The Audacity of Hope, shortly after September 11, at least one of his close political advisers offered his condolences on Obama’s political career, which he believed to be ruined because Obama and Osama are spelled similarly. And now, some Republicans giddily use his middle name “Hussein” as a scare tactic, as if to suggest that Obama has some secret loyalty to Islamic terrorists by virtue of a common Arabic name he inherited from his father (who he barely knew). Apparently, some people believe it is appropriate to chastise others based solely on their name. It’s pathetic, simplistic politics targeted only at the most ignorant and most gullible voters. Instead of debating substantive policy, some believe it’s appropriate to base electoral strategy on issues that primarily appeal to people who passively participate, people who view the election as it’s presented to them: nothing more than yet another media spectacle.

If you receive your news from Fox, then you may recall the madrassa story, in which Fox News picked up a fake story on Insight Magazine and told the world that Obama went to a training school for Muslim terrorists. This is the kind of craziness that passes as news:

Last week, for the third or fourth time, I received the Obama pledge of allegiance e-mail. The blog Think on These Things responds much better than I can:

Someone Lied To You

Let’s get to the larger issue though.

It’s too bad that we can’t say that whoever sent you that email has the same respect for your intellectual capacities.

Who thought you were so gullible that they would send you false, misleading information about something that could affect you and your children’s future–who our next President should be?

Somebody thought so poorly of you, your intelligence, and your well-being under the next Presidential administration that they flat out lied to you. Somebody tried to play you for a fool.

Barack Obama has respect for your intelligence. He has said:

“I have absolute confidence in the American people’s capacity to absorb the truth as long as we are forceful in that presentation.”

To be sure, Obama didn’t have his hand on his heart, but it wasn’t during the pledge of allegiance; it was during the National Anthem. More to the point: Have we really become a country so obsessed with ritual protocol that it’s acceptable to question someone’s patriotism based solely on an out-of-context photograph? And what’s wrong with singing along with the National Anthem?

Some Republicans seek to deflate an Obama candidacy and the potential for an Obama Presidency by scaring people about race, religion, and patriotism. They seek to establish Manichean boundaries to this conversation, once again asserting that their brand of religion, their understanding of race, and their interpretations of patriotism reflect some sort of objective truth. No one owns the truth. No one owns the meaning of patriotism. Too often, Americans have been coaxed into confusing unmitigated (and sometimes willingly punitive) jingoism for patriotism. Too often, people have allowed others to mediate the meaning of patriotism without question.

We should be a country of skeptics. Our collective skepticism is warranted. We were led into a war on false pretenses. Many people in my generation are proud Americans fighting in this war. And many, including Lee Deal (formerly of Alexandria), have lost their lives in this war. Which is why our skepticism should not be diverted to issues of little relevance or import; instead, we should direct our energy and attention toward discussing the issues that matter most.

In my personal opinion, a good steward of our nation is someone with good judgment and someone with the ability to listen to all people (and the ability to understand outside perspectives), someone with the intellectual capacity to recognize complexities, nuances, and most importantly, our Constitution– its true meaning and its implications.

In order to provide some context, this is the former Guaranty Bank and current Capital One Bank building, located across from the “new” Alexandria City Hall and the Hotel Bentley. It is the tallest building in Rapides Parish and a cornerstone of Downtown Alexandria.

…the building people…I’m talking about the building!

Kudos to Lamar for the great bit on the Bentley. It truly is the centerpiece of our area and the crown jewel of any successful effort — whatever eventual form it may take to develop our downtown. However, there is one stark reality that needs to be addressed quite openly and seriously regarding downtown development and the viability of the Bentley in general — City Hall.

Although the photos on the previous story are great and truly reflect the glamour of our gran dame hotel, the photo above captures the reality of the situation. When the Bentley was constructed it formed one boundary of a dynamic city square with greenspace and a smaller historic city hall in the centre. That’s no longer the case.

This brings to the forefront a reality of our redevelopment reality — we screwed up.

Alexandria City Hall, 1923. This structure was demolished to make room for the current building. Louisiana History Museum.

Sorry, there’s no other way to say it. Like so many other failed urban cores we embraced an attitude of out with the old and in with the new from the 1950’s to the 1990’s. This process stripped our downtown core of many of its historically and culturally significant assets. We lost theatres, the opera, our department stores, our shopping district, most of our restaurants, many of our churches. Much of what was lost was replaced with buildings or parking lots with very little to like about them.

Alexandria’s old City Hall with the Hotel Bentley in the background. Louisiana History Museum.

The Town Talk is now centered around a very warehouse like facility occupying otherwise usable riverfront space. The public library sits in a mass of concrete does little for books but does look remarkably like Drs. Denley and Culpepper’s office on Jackson put on some sort of architectural steroids. Then came the 90’s with the Broccato-Heinberg effect. That is, the selection of an immediately dated yet continuously repeated theme throughout the city in which a single firm or two were chosen to reshape the appearance of the metro area. This resulted in the Amphitheatre, the Murray Bridge Outlook, work at the zoo, the various welcome signs to the city, the Mall and several other locations with an eerily similar and rather 80’sish appearance accented by bold shapes and pastel hues. It’s now something we will have to work into future planning, and it’s not all bad, but it does show the folly of shortsighted planning.

Even with all the destructive effects of the last half century on our downtown, we do still have a core that we can work with. We have the heart of a city center with some great anchors — the Bentley on one side, the Capitol One building on the other, the Commercial Tower on the other, and the River finishing it off. We still have to figure out what to do with 3rd Street beyond Murray — to determine if those buildings are truly worth saving — if they can be reworked into something usable and returned to commerce. Or, do they need to be razed and rebuilt as functionally modern but historically sensitive structures. Whatever happens in this area is going to key — or rather the keystone of future development efforts downtown.

There is a first step however that must be taken. City Hall needs to go. That building was a mistake. There’s no way to say it other than that. That space currently occupied by City hall and the adjacent parking lots should be a public square.

City hall has had some good effects. It has shown that there is demand for public meeting space such as its main hall. It has shown that even 50 years ago underground parking is feasible in downtown Alexandria. But the building does not serve the function it should. It’s too small for government, too big for its location, and is acting a s hindrance to development rather than a supplement to it.

—————————————-

We should take the lead of other successful cities such as Boston and Providence and create a government centre — a more centralized, walkable zone in which city, local, parish, state and federal government offices are co-located, share facilities and resources, and provide a one-stop service point for citizens and business. That government centre almost already exists in downtown Alexandria near the Interstate centered around Murray Street. The city, school board, extraneous courts and other offices spread around the downtown area should focus on relocating to this area and fully developing it.

The current location of city hall would much better serve the citizens and business of the area as a multi-use green zone. With the elimination of city hall and the adjacent block, two levels of underground parking could be constructed on site which would provide the needed (and now missing) parking for existing hotels, restaurants and businesses. Atop this could be a pedestrian mall and park similar to Jackson Square in New Orleans with an additional performance space and outdoor stage/amphitheatre.

This could be the impetus for development the centre of our downtown core needs. A pedestrian mall in which people can shop, relax, listen to music, enjoy their city and one day hopefully stroll through the rest of a redeveloped downtown to their homes and condos throughout.

We need to be brave enough to take the needed first step, and that is a commitment from our city leaders to return our public square to the public, tear down city hall, and reintroduce commerce to the heart of downtown.