Louisiana Voice

In John Neely Kennedy’s latest TV ad, he proudly, if somewhat over-dramatically, boasts that he “stood up to Chia’-na,” eerily pronouncing the country’s name like another buffoon.

We’re not entirely clear on just how he stood up to the country that now owns much of our own country’s debt (north of $1 trillion) or which accounts for huge chunks of sales for companies like Apple, Intel, Boeing, Procter & Gamble, Starbucks, Nike, Abbott Laboratories, and a dozen or so more.

But those claims notwithstanding, we have yet to hear a plausible explanation from Louisiana’s junior senator of why he traveled to RUSSIA with a group of other Republican lawmakers over the July 4, 2018, holiday. Oh, he says he told Russian officials to “stop screwing with our election,” but we have only his word for that. And it remains unclear why the seven senators and one House member needed to travel there to deliver the message.

He claims that he passed more legislation than any other freshman Louisiana senator. But again, we have only his dubious word for that assertion. We do know, however that he was “among the Republican legislators who participated in the months-long, multifarious attempted coup following the 2020 presidential election,” according to GovTrack.us an online service designed to make Congress more open and accessible to Americans.

But to be fair, we did find a couple of bills that he actively pushed (others were simply amended or incorporated into other bills). He authored and passed the National Flood Insurance Program Extension Act of 2019 and the Rural Business Investment Companies Advisers Relief Act

Another that he SPONSORED called for the Department of Veterans Affairs to have physical locations for the disposal of controlled substances medications – appropriately called the DUMP Opioids Act. (It’s somehow difficult to fathom how it took an act of Congress to get the VA to provide a disposal system for opioids.)

Another simply AMENDED California into the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003.

Leave it to a Louisiana senator to attack the nutria problem head-on.

Don’t know how he managed to avoid those controversial bills being filibustered to death.

His latest ad also tells us that he “worked my butt off” en route to being NAMED among the “top 10 most effective Senate Republicans.”

Which, we must admit, tells us all we need to know about the Republican Party as a group and John N. Kennedy as an individual.

Interesting that NEWT GINGRICH would criticize anyone for anything considering the fact that he insisted that his first wife discuss terms of their divorce and sign legal papers – while she was in the hospital recovering from surgery for uterine cancer.

It’s also puzzling why he would single anyone out for criticism after nearly being caught by his daughters getting a BJ in his car in 1984. Only a quick-thinking aide who turned the girls away prevented their seeing something they could never unsee.

One would think that after being forced to resign from Congress in 1999 following the lodging of 84 ETHICS COMPLAINTS against him and a $300,000 sanction.

But despite glaring lapses in his own moral conduct, like his attempting to seduce a friend under the guise of comforting her following the death of a family member, he has found sufficient indignation to criticize John Fetterman’s tattoos.

Tattoos.

Fetterman is the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania. He is pitted against Dr. Mehmet Oz in this November’s election.

The controversial Pennsylvania lieutenant governor has SEVERAL TATTOOS, including nine which are dates of a violent death while he was mayor of Braddock, Pennsylvania. The first one, he has explained was “01.16.06.”

“That’s the date on which Christopher Williams was shot dead while delivering pizzas,” Fetterman said. “This was a man about my age at the time. He had a 12-year-old daughter. I just couldn’t get over the fact that he was never going home to her.”

But it wasn’t the nine dates that had the Grinch tied up in knots. It was Nine-Inch Nails. “Why would Pennsylvania Democratic senate candidate John Fetterman have a tattoo saying, ‘I will make you hurt’?” the former U.S. House Speaker tweeted, apparently oblivious to the 1994 song Nine Inch Nails made famous in 2002 by country singer Johnny Cash shortly before his death.

Rather than recognizing the tattoo as a tribute to Cash, Grinch absurdly TWEETED on Monday, “Is Pennsylvania Democrat Fetterman’s tattoo ‘I will make you hurt’ based on his ties to the crips (sic) gang as reported by the Free Beacon or a reference to the nine-inch nails song ‘Hurt.’ Fetterman won’t answer questions.”

My gawd, that sounds like Trump in an echo chamber.

But here’s my point of all this nonsense: Gingrich first ran for Congress in 1978 as a family values candidate (pardon my snickering at the irony).

So, I can’t help but wonder how he feels about that tattoo of Richard Nixon on Trump devotee and Jan. 6 insurrectionist Roger Stone’s back or the tattoo of Tony Perkins, president of Family Forum. Perkins’s is the basic Marine Corps insignia from his days as a U.S. Marine – we think. But hey, drawing on Gingrich’s logic, who’s to say they’re both not based on Stone’s or Perkins’s ties to some subversive gang[s]?

Preposterous? Hell yes. Unfortunately, that’s what we’ve come to expect from some creepy internet troll sitting in his parents’ basement. But damnit, Gingrich knows better and he still perpetuates such garbage. He, of all people, should never sit in judgment of anyone.

A 21^st Judicial District Judge has DISMISSED the defamatory lawsuit of a Livingston Parish middle school librarian’s defamation lawsuit against two men she says have attacked her in an effort to rally opposition to the inclusion of what they term “inappropriate” books in the Livingston Parish Library.

In what has to be considered a major stretch of the definition, Judge Erika Sledge determined that librarian Amanda Jones was a “public figure,” and thus fair game under the landmark Sullivan v. New York Times Supreme Court decision which made it more difficult for public figures to pursue libel claims.

I’m not an attorney, but I always felt that the term “public figure” as defined in the Supreme Court’s decision was intended for elected officials and figures of authority, not civil servants. I guess this Supreme Court one day could conceivably determine journalists and garbage collectors (some say those occupations are interchangeable) to be “public figures.”

At any rate, when St. Martin Parish resident Michael Lunsford, president of something called Citizens for a New Louisiana, stuck his nose into the Livingston Parish Library system, he offered encouragement for Livingston Parish resident Ryan Thames to post derogatory messages on Facebook that painted Jones as somehow encouraging pedophilia by speaking out in a public hearing against censorship.

Posts by Thames that accused Jones of advocating the teaching of anal sex to 11-year-olds in turn prompted other Facebook participants to join in a barrage of insults and outright lies about and threats to Jones, comments that expanded on Thames’s accusations.

Lunsford and Thames, of course (as might be expected), smugly plastered their victory all over their respective Facebook pages.

“As a librarian I know the power of words,” Jones said. “Their ability to change hearts and minds, to move us forward or to divide us, is something that I share with my students every day. Right now, extremists are using violent and divisive language to scare me and hurt my reputation.

“The people they incite called me a pedophile, groomer, and pervert. Their words are gross and false, malicious and dangerous.

“They are attacking me because I am defending our community’s right to a great education, to have access to materials that reflect the reality of their world, and that engage them in learning. I am a middle school librarian, a mother, and a lifelong resident of our community. I have been teaching for 22 years and I work closely with my students’ parents to keep them safe.   

“On Tuesday, a judge determined that it is okay for these falsehoods to continue to be spread freely on social media, even if they ‘hurt my feelings.’

“But this was never about my feelings. This is about our collective safety and our children’s right to be, and to learn.  This is about making it safe for educators to do their jobs, and for children to have truly great educational opportunities. While it is never easy or comfortable to do so, we must continue to stand up to these bullies to ensure that all of our students are safe, respected, and free to learn. 

“These past few weeks have been the hardest of my life. I am deeply disappointed in the court’s decision, and appalled that the court does not recognize the violent power of the words falsely used to intimidate me. However, I am proud of choosing to challenge these bullies, and stand up for the best interests of our community. I am proud that the Livingston Parish Library System chose to do the same by refusing to ban books in our library collection. There is a vocal minority of bullies hurling violent insults. We are all stronger and safer when we join together to speak out against their hate and division. 

“Thanks to the hundreds of supporters who have stood by me. I have never felt more loved and supported in all of my life. Perhaps most wonderful, so many of my former students reached out to me with words of encouragement, and to tell me how I helped shape their lives for the better.  In the end, that is what all educators aspire to do. We give our all to support our students and try to make the world a better place for them. Hearing from my former students lets me know that I have accomplished that in my 22 years as an educator. Inspired by that knowledge, I will continue to do so.”

Jones said she has not decided yet whether she will appeal Judge Sledge’s ruling. If she does appeal and Sledge is overturned, the case would be remanded to Sledge’s court and she has already shown that she is predisposed to rule against her.

“I’m talking to different political analysts, the Tulane First Amendment Law Clinic, and several others before making my decision,” Jones said.

The 1964 unanimous Supreme Court ruling, the result of a lawsuit against the New York Times by Montgomery, Alabama, Police Commissioner L.B. Sullivan after the newspaper ran a full-page ad that was critical of Sullivan and the Montgomery police for their mistreatment of civil rights protesters.

The ad contained several inaccuracies and Sullivan sued for defamation. But the court ruled that a public figure must prove than any untruth was printed with “actual malice,” meaning that the defendant either knew the statement to be false or recklessly disregarded whether it might be false.

If accusing a teacher wrongly, someone you don’t even know nor ever met, of promoting pedophilia doesn’t constitute “actual malice,” if that doesn’t qualify as “reckless disregard,” I’m not at all certain what might.

And let’s not forget what she did to bring all that down upon her: she spoke out against censorship and in favor of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution at a public meeting.

Sorry, but there’s something terribly wrong with this picture. But hey, that’s just me.

The House Wednesday approved the first step toward preventing another event like the Jan. 6,2021, Capitol riot by narrowly passing the overhaul of the 135-year-old Electoral Count Act by a 229-203 vote.

The very fact that the only Republican votes were cast by nine members who are leaving Congress this year illustrates how committed the 203 party members who voted against the bill are to getting themselves reelected as opposed to putting country over party.

Their vote also exposes their complete and total fealty to Donald Trump who, at best, is damaged goods, but still wields considerable influence over tens of millions of voters perfectly willing to overlook their leader’s corruption and felonious and treasonous behavior.

H.R. 8873, aka the Presidential Election Reform Act, updates the law that governs Congress’s electoral vote count by the states, the final step under the Constitution to confirm the results of a presidential election, and over which thousands of rioters, encouraged by Trump, stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 in an effort to halt that process.

The House bill would, among other things, raise the threshold to consider an objection to a state’s electoral votes to one-third of both the House and Senate. A similar Senate bill yet to be considered would require only one-fifth of both chambers to agree to a challenge. Each is more stringent than the current rules.

Significantly, while Republican members of both the House and Senate have claimed massive fraud in the presidential voting in which Joe Biden defeated Trump, not one of those representatives or senators who ran successfully for election or reelection have claimed fraud in their own electoral success.

In the lead-up to the House vote on the bill, GOP leaders, among them Republican Whip Steve Scalise, R-Louisiana, called on their members to oppose the bill.

“In their continued fixation to inject the Federal government into elections, this legislation runs counter to reforms necessary to strengthen the integrity of our elections,” read a statement from Scalise’s office in calling for Republicans to vote “no” on the bill. (Well, the reforms are for a federal election, after all.)

And the sheep, with the exception of those nine who are moving on and thus, had no political capital to lose, obeyed like any loyal Trump lap dog.

Among those who got the message were all five Republican House members from Louisiana: KKK Scalise, Feet of Clay Higgins, Mike “Tattoo” Johnson, Julia Letlow and Garret Graves. Only Democrat Troy Carter saw the need for election integrity and voted in favor of the bill.

This says that five of Louisiana’s six U.S. representatives have no problem with the possibility of another storming of the Capitol:

Folks, it’s really pathetic when a single individual commands the hearts and minds of an entire body of people. When one person, no matter how good or bad, whether well- or ill-intentioned, can literally control the actions of millions of people – or a group of legislators – we’re already so far down the rabbit hole that we may never again see daylight.

History has shown us time and time again what can happen when an entire society marches in lockstep with any leader. I don’t have to recite the names of those despots, because you know who they are.

When a body of lawmakers acts as though they are in some sort of hypnotic trance in order to curry the favor of any person, when party unity is given greater preference than national interests, when the objective no longer is what’s best for the country but instead, devolves into let’s undermine every proposal put forward by the opposition, when loyal opposition becomes seething hatred, then, by God, we’re no longer a great nation, but a third-world country, what the former guy would describe us, a “s**thole country.”

I love this country dearly but when I see the mindset of our leaders of both parties, I despair for its future and for the future of my children and grandchildren.

And before anyone suggests it, no, I’m not leaving for Venezuela or Russia. That’s such a trite, kneejerk response, and completely invalidates any argument you might put forth.

No, I prefer to remain here to try to make my country a better, saner place to live.

If we can’t point out our warts, blemishes, and deficiencies when we see them, then freedom becomes just an empty word devoid of any meaning. That’s why, when I realized the Republican Party wasn’t the same party I’d joined 40 years before, I bolted for a party that I find to be only marginally better. These days I refer to myself simply as a recovering Republican.

At least I haven’t found a Ted Cruz, a Jim Jordan, a Mitch McConnell, or a Marjorie Taylor-Greene among its membership yet.

The announcement last week that the state had, at long last, settled the class-action lawsuit with victims the 1983 flood who lost their homes and businesses because of the damming effect of Interstate 12 which they said impeded the flow of floodwaters was of more than passing interest to me.

I began working for the state’s insurance agency, the Office of Risk Management, in January 1991 and that case, already seven years old, was one I inherited on Day One and which was still an open case when I retired in 2011.

(Another one I inherited that ultimately resulted in a multi-million-dollar settlement involved a couple returning home on a rural road after partying late into the night. She was apparently very tired because she had her head in his lap when he became distracted and ran off the road, flipping his vehicle and ejecting her, causing crippling injuries.)

The flood case was bounced around with the original defense attorney being replaced after failing to argue that the Interstate was built to federal specifications and that the proper party to sue would have been the feds.

Then, when it finally went to trial, the state’s hydraulics expert showed up to testify without the proper computer program in his possession. Inadvertently left back in his home in Colorado, it would have been used to illustrate parameters and data which he said would be in the state’s favor.

Instead, he fumbled and stumbled his way through testimony, attempting to ad lib his testimony but fooling no one, especially the presiding judge who nearly held the poor guy in contempt.

Following that debacle, I felt the state should file a claim with his errors and omissions insurer.

As a point of clarification, contractors with the state, be they attorneys, physicians, constructors, or experts in myriad litigation cases, are required to offer proof that they carry what is called E&O (errors and omissions) coverage for any possible commissions of malpractice or other screw-ups.

Except for whatever reason, this expert had never been asked about his E&O verification or else, just failed to provide it. That’s what I learned when I called and asked him about his coverage. And there was no point in pursuing him for any liability because he certainly did not have the financial resources to atone for such a multi-million-dollar oversight.

So, bottom line, the jury awarded $92 million (plus judicial interest, which began on the day the lawsuit was filed and would not end until final payment was made) to the 1,246 victims of the flood, victims who included 400 families and 96 businesses. Interest is not paid on settlements such as that reached last week.

When judicial interest was added in, the total award came to about $150 million — 30 years ago.

Last week’s settlement was for $95 million, plus $6 million the state has previously placed into an account for the plaintiffs, making a total settlement of $101 million.

The award was made during the administration of the late Gov. Mike Foster, who determined that the state simply could not afford to write a check for such a momentous award.

That was before the state had what is known as excess coverage. That’s an insurance policy the state buys to cover awards north of $5 million. Under such coverage, the state would be liable for the first $5 million with the excess insurer being on the hook for the balance.

The problem with that was the excess insurer had a pesky habit of refusing to honor such claims, basing their position on the argument that the state should have settled for a lower amount when settlement was still an option. Because of difficulties with excess carriers, the state dropped such coverage for a while but, I believe, resumed its coverage a few years later.

But at the time of the judgment, the state had never had excess coverage, so it was obligated for the full $150 million award and Foster just said nope, the state wasn’t gonna pay it.

And that’s the way it rocked along for my entire 20-year tenure as nursemaid to the file. Occasionally, the Risk Director would drop by my cubicle and ask that I run the interest calculations to the current date to learn what the latest amount owed was.

The last time I ran the figures, I recall that the amount due had swollen to about $250 million or so – a quarter-billion-dollars. Those periodic calculations were simply exercises in futility as no effort was ever made to pony up any money for the plaintiffs. In the 11 years since my retirement, the amount had grown to more than $330 million, according to State Rep. Bill Wheat, R-Ponchatoula, making that $101 settlement something of a bargain for the state.

And bear in mind, these occasional interest runs occurred during the latter stages of the Jindal administration when the state was dead broke and Jindal was grabbing money from several state agencies (like the Office of Group Benefits, which saw its $500 million surplus evaporate under Jindal) just to keep the lights on. Restrooms were being stocked with fragments of toilet paper rolls stolen from other restrooms in something reminiscent of a game of musical toilet seats.

The lead plaintiff attorney once called me to attempt to negotiate a settlement and because was a clear violation of prohibitions of ex parte contact (any action taken in a legal proceeding without the participation of the other side’s attorney), he nearly got disbarred, but managed to convince the disciplinary board that he thought I was an attorney. Called to testify against him, I could only say I could not read his mind and if he said he thought I was an attorney, I had no way to dispute that.

The final settlement amount was negotiated by the administration of Gov. John Bel Edwards who, perhaps not coincidentally, is a native of Tangipahoa Parish

(Full disclosure: I was a lousy claims adjuster, the B.S. efforts by the agency attorney to blow smoke up my toga by once calling me “one of the best” notwithstanding, and my “retirement” most probably preceded by a few days my being shown the door because of my having launched this blog just weeks before.)