Louisiana Voice

Got a news tip or lead? send your information to: louisianavoice@cox.net. Your identity will not be divulged.

Disclaimer-Disclaimer-Disclaimer! It’s not Dave Barry and the following Christmas shopping suggestions are solely those of John Sachs and not Louisiana Voice.

John’s Christmas Shopping Tips

This is the first of what I anticipate becoming a multi-year Christmas shopping suggestion list intended to help men become Holiday Heroes. Women, you can stop reading now. If you continue, you have no one but yourselves to blame when no glorious surprises are awaiting you on Christmas morning.

Now, guys, let’s be candid here. I’m not married and don’t have a lady friend. I’ve never been successful at either enterprise. But that doesn’t for a moment dissuade me from considering myself totally qualified to offer you advice on how to Christmas shop for the woman in your life. There are plenty of folks blithely going about the world giving advice to others on topics with which they have no expertise. So why not me? And if I’m wrong…oh well. With that understood, let’s get started on specifics.

Ruston offers conveniently located, moderately priced, and skillfully managed stores to make your shopping joyful. Yeah, joyful. That’s a good seasonal word to describe what we want here. No need to leave the deer camp early as these places are accustomed to customers with deer entrails splattered on their camouflage overalls and deer scat on their boots. These folks really mean it when they say, “Come as you are.” There are plenty of sympathetic salesmen who speak your language, and they’ll understand your predicament—completely.

First gift idea. A vacuum cleaner. More specifically, a USED vacuum cleaner. The local vacuum cleaner store has a dandy selection. They can also offer you some great tips on describing the features of your purchase to “the li’l lady” recipient of your generosity. And believe me when I tell you, almost nothing impresses a lady more than a man who knows vacuum cleaners.

But don’t get snookered into actually using the darn thing. When she coyly suggests that you vacuum a few rooms to show her how to use it, just turn it on, hand it to her and say, “I don’t want to deprive you of a moment’s pleasure.” Then quickly walk away. Preferably out of earshot range so you won’t have to listen to her screams of what are surely delight with her present.

Second, a broom and dust pan set. Getting the broom with the matching, color coordinated, clip-on dust pan is a sure winner. And so considerate. I just hate it when I hear of women getting upset as they prepare to sweep up the dirt from his work boots that he just deposited on her freshly mopped floor. Often when that happens she is unable to speak through her clinched teeth, but I’m pretty certain it’s because she’s upset about the missing dustpan.

One more thing about brooms I want to share with you that is sure to win points. Get one cut on the bias. That means that the straws or bristles or whatever you call the things that actually move the dirt around aren’t straight. They are shorter on one end than the other. Let me help you out here. Those things are cut that way so that first, you can get dirt out of the corners easier, and second, so that when you put the broom in the closet it will stay behind the doorjamb and won’t fall out and hit her, or more importantly – you — on the head.

Again, to impress your lady fair, let her know you considered these points when selecting her broom set. Then point out some dirt in a corner and encourage her to clean it up. When it works just as you said it would, you’ll make bonus points. It may not by itself be a home run, but it’ll be a strong triple.

Okay, we’re down to the last of this year’s Big Three gift suggestions. A used bicycle. The folks at the local bike shop can fix you up from their selection, or they’ll put one you bought through Thrifty Nickel into top-notch shape. When choosing that perfect bike for the ladylove of your life, you’ll need to pay close attention to three things. Make certain it has wide, soft tires. If at all possible, get one with shock absorbers. Really. Bikes have shock absorbers on them nowadays. And most important of all, get the biggest seat that money can buy. If there is such a thing as a bicycle seat for two, buy it.

Again, prepare to be pampered once she receives this gift on Christmas morning. Point out to her all of the comfort features that you made certain to incorporate into the bike. Point out the smooth ride the big tires will provide. Emphasize the value of “heavy duty” shock absorbers for her riding comfort. And then for the coup de gras, point out the oversized seat meant to accommodate (maybe even custom fit) her anatomy.

One word of caution. When she sits on the custom oversized seat and asks you if it makes her hips look fat—lie! Trust me, you’ll get an extra serving of Christmas dinner with this last point. However, failure to follow these instructions completely may result in your just being lucky to be alive to enjoy Christmas dinner. But not to worry. Go for it.

Well, there you have it. My first annual gift idea list for the hurried and harried man. No need to thank me. It’s my gift to y’all.

Read Full Post »

By John Sachs
Guest Columnist

This discussion of the effects of technological advancements centers on population and societal concerns. I’d much rather Dr. Gary Stokley or Dr. Judith Howard discuss the sociological or psychological effects and ramifications of technological advancements, but I’ll take a layman’s stab at it. If either expert gives me a thumping, I’ll take my licks.

In 1800, the average American woman bore 7 children. By 1940, that birth rate had fallen to 2 per woman and has stayed roughly in this range since, with the exception of the “baby boomer” spike in the 1950’s.

Although 2 children per couple roughly equates to zero population growth, it takes approximately 70 years for that to take effect. That is, it takes roughly 70 years before a child is born, has children of his or her own, and then dies at age 70 just as a great-grandchild is born. In the interim, in absolute numbers, population continues to grow. Therefore, it will be a number of years before we see a shrinking population even if we are immediately successful at significantly reducing our current birth rate to that of China, Canada, and most European nations.

Several factors led to the dramatic decline in the birth rate mentioned above. Mechanization of farming created less demand for human labor. Tractors with cultivators, plows, discs, and harrows, and cotton pickers, grain threshers, and potato diggers are examples of such mechanization.

However, at this same time, industrialization was hitting its stride, and nonexistent child labor laws created a climate for hiring cheap child labor. These children lived at home and their meager wages went into the household coffer. So even as rural families were decreasing, urban families had reason to increase family size.

But urban families did not increase in size as much as rural families decreased. Why? First, during this 140 year period, wages increased six fold, and women chose to enter the workforce as contributors to the family income rather than staying at home having babies to work the farm or in the mills. And second, women were becoming educated and wanted more from life than being a subservient bearer (I won’t say beast) of burdens for their husbands.

Are you beginning to see that history is in the process of repeating itself as a result of today’s technological advancements? Again, fewer people doing more work. Educated men and women seeing themselves as more than just procreators of the species (parents) eking out a drab existence. Economic factors are again significantly affecting social behavior. But this time the world is a far different place.

The populations of almost every nation have reached a level where there are not enough jobs to sustain functioning, much less vibrant, economies. There are certainly not enough jobs for the unskilled and uneducated or under-educated. And there never again will be. The remedy for this is twofold: fewer people and a better educated and more skilled workforce. And both must be dealt with simultaneously.

One factor that will continue to reduce birth rates is gainful employment of better educated men and women of child-bearing age. Such couples choose to have smaller families — unlike the marginally employed and poorly educated couples OR SINGLE PARENT. Job success, rather than producing children, provides a sense of accomplishment. Also, educated couples provide better educational environments for their fewer children. This is Quality over Quantity.

And as to the issue of single parents, children born to unwed mothers now represent 40% of all American births. This is up by 25% in just the last 5 years. 5 years! That’s an explosion. Worse yet is the fact that 70% of Black children are born to unwed mothers. I’m not sure what I can or should say about that statistic, so I’ll leave it saying only that this is a problem of epidemic proportions that absolutely must be resolved.

Never mind the ethics regarding absentee and irresponsible fathers. Look only at the economic impact. In large measure, children born to unwed mothers and raised without two present and involved parents will not, on average, receive the education and skills needed to compete in the job market. And what will result from more and more such people comprising a significant percentage of the population? You fill in the blank. And I’ll bet in your worse case scenario you’ll underestimate the negative effects.

An educated, employable, and employed populace is an absolute necessity to national survival. America has already fallen to #18 in technology development, whereas less than 10 years ago we thought that we would always be #1. At #18 we are virtually out of the race. Remember, the country that develops the technology gets first crack at creating the jobs utilizing such technology.

That’s why La Tech’s Enterprise Center and others like it are so critically important. America’s math and reading skills rank so low that I don’t even care to report them to you. Suffice it to say that at our current rate, American children had best learn to speak and read Chinese, Hindi, and Spanish at a minimum so that they will be able to communicate with their bosses.

Anything, ANYTHING in the near-term that slows effective classroom education and skill-set training to our entire population will negatively impact our economic well-being and ultimately our national security. Keep this in mind as you listen to and discuss political debates.

Read Full Post »

By Judith Howard

My biggest disappointments in the recent mid-term elections were that Senator Russ Feingold in Wisconsin and Congressman Tom Perriello in Virginia lost their seats. Both are men with conviction, and are as clean as politicians can be.

Feingold co-sponsored legislation with McCain on campaign finance laws that our conservative Supreme Court dismantled in January. He voted against the financial reform bill because he said it wasn’t strong enough.

Perriello voted for health insurance reform, for Wall Street reform, and for a cap and trade bill even though he is from a district that went for John McCain in 2008, because he thinks those votes were the right thing to do. In his concession speech he said that Judgment Day was more important than Election Day. I hope both men will run again.

My biggest embarrassment was that David Vitter will once again be Louisiana’s senator. It gets tiresome to be the laughingstock of the country.

According to Republicans congressional leaders, voters in last week’s election sent a message that we want a repeal of healthcare, lower taxes, and smaller government. Of course that’s what they are going to say. That is not what they are going to do.

The Henry K. Kaiser Foundation’s did exit polling to see what the most important thing on voters’ minds was. Their polling found that 29% said jobs and the economy was most important, the deficit/government spending was most important for 9% of voters, and taxes ranked at the bottom with only 5% of voters.

There have been all kinds of interpretations of the election results. The best I’ve seen is this one by Matt Miller:

Voters punished a party they are furious with by giving more power to a party they can’t stand. That sounds about right to me. Capitol Hill Republicans have a 23% approval rating, according to a National Journal poll in October.

Why might voters be furious with Democrats? Because of the unemployment rate. Because we bailed out Wall Street, yet not one banker has done a perp walk for almost taking down the financial system. Because bankers have fraudulently foreclosed on peoples’ houses, yet not one of them has been held to account.

I suspect Democrats underestimate how much the lack of accountability underlies much of the discontent with Washington, especially with people who have lost not just their jobs, but also their homes as a result of being unemployed.
The unemployed and the foreclosed-upon have families and friends who, even though they may still have a job and a home, see how the system has worked for those who don’t, versus how it has worked for bankers.

Plus, corporate America spent anonymous millions to convince voters that Obama raised taxes, even though he didn’t; that health insurance reform is socialism, even though it expanded the market for private insurance companies; and that Nancy Pelosi is the devil incarnate, even though she got legislation passed to benefit the middle class.

In other words, those anonymous millions of dollars created an alternate reality that too many Americans bought into.

In order to show their displeasure with Democrats, people voted for the Party they hate. This makes no sense, but we shouldn’t be surprised by it. Angry behavior is seldom rational behavior.

The election results mean we will probably get watch gridlock for the next two years, because Republicans have no ideas beyond tax cuts, and no interest in governing. What they have is rhetoric—fine-sounding, but insincere words.

Take, for example, repealing health insurance reform. Ain’t gonna happen. Why? One reason is because insurance executives don’t want it to happen. As reported by Reuters, the CEO of Cigna said, “Repealing the new U.S. healthcare law would be a waste of time, but there is room to improve it.”

Insurance CEOs don’t like parts of the law, such as not being able to reject people for pre-existing conditions, but they love the individuate mandate, because it brings them millions of new customers.

Not unsurprisingly, the individual mandate is the only part of the law that voters disapprove of, (where’s all that personal responsibility when you need it?). According to a Henry K. Kaiser Foundation survey last week, other sections of the law received in the neighborhood of a 70% approval rating.

I predict congressional Republicans will engage in all kinds of posturing about trying to repeal health insurance reform in order to placate their Tea Party base. Come 2012, however, the law will still be in place, but Republican governors will try to gum up the works and sabotage the insurance exchanges in whatever ways they can.

The mid-term election has come to an end. Now the 2012 presidential election has begun. Why do I say that? Because rather than groan behind the scenes, some in the Republican establishment have started to publicly turn on Queen Sarah–they do not want her to win the nomination. This could get interesting.

Read Full Post »

Editor’s note: Louisiana Voice, while intended to draw attention to the foibles of our Louisiana Legislature and the machinations of the administration in Baton Rouge, is also open to a dialogue on national and international matters of import. Whether we agree or disagree with our guest columnists is not the issue. The issue is the free and unencumbered exchange if ideas, a principle to which we are incontrovertibly committed.

By John Sachs

Never has there been a greater capability to WAGE war than what the United States possesses. However, have we lost our ability to WIN a war? And what do I mean by “win?” Not what you may think.

Our nation designs and produces the most powerful of weapons. Our brave soldiers fight with unmatched discipline and dedication. We pour enough of our nation’s wealth into waging war that if spent on ourselves would lead to our solving almost every ill our nation faces. Yet with all of this power, we still do not win wars.

We all know what waging war is. Bombs and bullets, rifles and cannons, warships and bombers. Killing both combatants and non-combatants alike. Destruction of property. Disrupting the enemy’s commerce. Leaving a scorched earth in our wake. That’s what we do better than any other nation. We know how to wage war.

So what is winning a war? Winning is ridding our enemy of its desire to pose a threat to our nation’s security. If we can’t accomplish this, even though our enemy has surrendered, we have not won the war. What is left is a void, a vacuum into which disorder and chaos will surely return. Examples of wars that we have valiantly waged and yet not won include Korea, Viet Nam, Somalia, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

The United States is so inept at winning wars that it often doesn’t realize when the war has been won or lost. The latest tragic example is Afghanistan! The war in Afghanistan has been won twice and lost once. It was first won in 2002 by the United States when the warlord-led Taliban was neutralized, many of the Al Qaeda leaders had been killed, and a functioning central government had been established. Yet the United States did not realize that it had won and so is still fighting 8 years later, losing more and more each day, and has now indisputably lost the war. The threat to the United States grows each day we continue to wage war in Afghanistan.

So who won the second time? CHINA. Yes, even though they do not have a single soldier in the fight, they won the war.

How can that be? I will try to quickly explain and then encourage you to read more about this subject. Below is information obtained in part from the WORLD Blog from NBC News dated October 14, 2009.

Just outside Kabul, Afghanistan is the Aynak copper mine, which is believed to contain the world’s second-largest untapped copper deposit. This deposit was discovered in 1974 but until now has not been developed due to Afghanistan’s wars first with Russia and now the United States’ war against the Taliban and, ostensibly, Al Qaeda.

When China learned of this phenomenal copper deposit, it set about to negotiate a development pact with the Afghanistan government. In 2007, an agreement was signed where a Chinese joint venture would pay for the development and operating costs in exchange for 50% of the output. The remaining 50% would be available to the Afghan government to either use or sell. Note the equality of the split. In contrast, American developers have historically bribed corrupt foreign officials and then taken virtually 100% of the riches, leaving the general economy of the host nation no better off had the riches never been discovered or developed.

That’s why we are deservedly often referred to as “the Ugly Americans.”

When brought on-line, the Aynak mine will employ an estimated 40,000 Afghan citizens. And since the development is already well under way with production to begin in 2011, citizen excitement runs high, and China is viewed as a hero. Do you think that the Taliban would dare try to disrupt the Aynak development? NO! The citizen resistance would be unlike any that the Taliban has encountered.

Furthermore, the Chinese are building a road to Afghanistan for use in transporting their share of the copper to China. Imagine that. China is building a road to connect the two countries for common good. Yet the United States builds walled barriers to cut itself off from economic cooperation with its own neighbor. If we want to reduce illegal Mexican immigration, then we should help to create jobs in Mexico that will keep them there and in which we can share the economic bounty. That’s what is known as a win-win situation.

But the United States continues killing Afghan citizens, disrupting the economy, and destroying what little infrastructure the country has left. Are we removing the evil? Are we building long-term friendships where those on foreign shores will help to protect us from threats abroad? Are we helping to build an economy not dependent on the poppy trade and not controlled by warlords friendly to and financially supportive of Al Qaeda? Are we winning the war? Kinda hard to answer yes to those questions, isn’t it?

So what do we do now? First, for the future, clearly define what winning will look like. Then develop strategies and plans to accomplish winning. Learn by observing winners. Start with China. And most importantly, be slow to anger. Might does not make right. With might we can win battles, but not wars. Remember what we were all taught in kindergarten: Play Fair. Who knows, maybe, just maybe, we can learn to resolve arguments and live safely without so often resorting to war.

Read Full Post »