Letter: Louisiana more like a dictatorship

Six months ago I moved back to my home state of Louisiana after living in Florida for five and a half years. Florida survives on sales tax versus income tax due to the mass of tourist and temporary residents that come to the state. Louisiana does not have that type of tourist base.

As a retiree, the increased sales tax would end up costing us more. Most people would have to re-evaluate their spending habits which would mean less revenue coming to the state coffers.

A big and unpleasant surprise to me upon my return is that our state seems to have become more of a dictatorship than a democracy. How did the governor get so powerful that when someone disagrees, their district gets punished in some way or they lose their job or get replaced on committees by those who will agree?

Being vindictive is not a characteristic of good leadership skills. First thing I did upon my return was to get my voter registration up to date. Legislators, please get your backbones back.

Brenda Thomas

retired disaster worker

Denham Springs

Comments

1) Comment by InPVille - 06/02/2013

@Old Man Kensey: "Economic enlightenment! Haha," Here again as in your comments posted in another letter you fail to grasp/note that I discounted the economic enlightenment study as I did the first. How sad. Here is the key sentence. "This one will probably also not bear up under serious scrutiny."

2) Comment by Bouncer - 06/02/2013

LOL@Whatnow. Yeah. And I'm Sean Connery. (That's how seriously I take all of your boasts about your humanitarian deeds.) In the battle for knowledge, you are a conscientious objector.

3) Comment by Whatnow - 06/02/2013

Bouncer, I did not threaten you in the least. I just dared you to come out from behind your computer instead of hiding with your hate. Most of you liberals that post on here spew hate with name calling and putdowns to Louisiana. We conservatives don't play that way because we won't bring ourselves down to your level of dirty play. And where do I post anything against any race that implies that I'm a racist? I have helped more people of color than anyone that I know in my area. I even have students from all over the world of all colors live in my home as exchange students. I have one living here right now from Uganda. I had an all black Cub Scout Den, I built a playground (one of those big wooden types) all alone for the kids in an all black neighborhood, I've held fundraisers for the same kids for Christmas presents and clothes and served in food pantries, picked them up to play baseball and dozens of other things like this. Those kids are adults now and bring their kids to fish in my pond. They tell me that they love me because I am not racist. What have you done? I am not prejudiced against color, I am prejudiced against laziness and stupidity and lack of morals. I've even helped some of the get jobs. And as far a saying I'm anti-gay in a crowd? I've already done that at a Christian rally that had gays boycotting years ago. They didn't do anything. There were more gays than Christians, too. STUPID? Maybe by your cowardly definition, but I did stand my ground in public.

4) Comment by InPVille - 06/02/2013

@Old Man Kensey @Scrooge: How is what I wrote different from approving what a study says which YOU also have not read? I tried to look up the study on the internet from the sparse information provided. Did either of you? What I found was behind a pay wall. The web pages which listed the study tended to be slanted leftward. If you can point me to a site where the study and the data documentation behind the study including the statistical scripts without cost, I'll study it. However, I'll not hold my breath. Many scholarly publications do not enforce their requirements that the data backing up a study be actually archived so other researchers can attempt to repeat and confirm what the report purports to find. It is somewhat better where the physical sciences are concerned. The standards of the social sciences are tattered and worn. The following essay by Nobel Prize winning Physicist Richard Feynman discusses the decline in the practice of science, particularly the social sciences, back in 1974. The situation has declined even further in recent decades: http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

5) Comment by Bouncer - 06/02/2013

How like the typical backwards-thinking, gun totin', Bible thumpin' "Louisianan" such as "Whatnow" to implicitly threaten violence against someone. Of course, threatening bodily harm is a tactic of a blockhead who cannot rebut an assertion. Since you want to play "you won't say this around that" then let me issue a challenge to you. Get in the middle of a group of black people and spew your usual racist claptrap. Or attend a gay rights rally and start spouting your anti-gay rhetoric. One big difference between you and me is that you would probably do something as STUPID as the things I've just mentioned. I, on the other hand, have enough sense to choose when, where, and how to make a point. Actually, if you weren't one of the Jesus-humping idiots I have referenced, you wouldn't have been bothered by what I said anyway. You have yourself a nice day, and take the last word if you like. Having the last word means nothing.....except you got the last word in. Enjoy.

6) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 06/02/2013

Economic enlightenment! Haha, exactly what is that? A new focus group tested way to say tax cuts! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pville, science and scientific studies have standards and methods that prevent the broad dissemination of ***** Can those standards being broken? Yes, but it will quickly be discovered when no one else can replicate the findings. Peer review will dismiss the wackos that create new slogans like economic enlightenment. >>>>>>>>>Economic enlightenment. How funny. All this time I thought there was just economics. Either you understood it or you didn't.

7) Comment by Scrooge - 06/02/2013

Attempting to discredit without actually reading the study in question is as specious as making claims about the unread study. " I suspect" that when one doesn't like the purported results of a study, one has a bias without even reading it. Linking to other irrelevant, claimed as spurious studies in support of a spurious argument has no merit as well. However, this tactic is used quite effectively to dupe the gullible by our new and improved Louisiana government including the Dept. of "Education"

8) Comment by InPVille - 05/02/2013

@jedleland: I suspect that like other similar studies published in the past, when someone with any actual knowledge of statistical processes used in the study and who has taken a good look at the way the actual questions asked and possible answers provided, your study will prove to be about as sound as a rotten floor. Social Science studies are notorious for the softness(low sigma) of their finding. Another recent study showed that those who self identified themselves as progressive or liberal scored the worst in the area economic enlightenment and those who considered themselves conservative scored very high. This one will probably also not bear up under serious scrutiny. Then there is the Steven Lewandowsky(Winthrop Professor, School of Psychology, University of Western Australia) and John Cook(the laughably named "Skeptical Science" Blog) study which claimed to seek to study Global Warming Skeptics and conspiracy theories to which the respondents turned out to be primarily made up of followers of Cook's blog who were the exact opposite of Global Warming Skeptics. As anyone with any knowledge of statistics will admit, you can almost always find some statistical measure which will fail to show that what you seek to claim is in error.

9) Comment by Scrooge - 05/02/2013

Btw actual title of study is Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact

10) Comment by Scrooge - 05/02/2013

jedleland, I always suspected as much based on the general level of writing and expression of thought (?) one finds on theadvocate by those predisposed to a particular persuasion. It is sad, really, but a smart politician could use this realization to advantage, especially with a cynical and ruthless ambition. You know, power outages in the third world are quite common.

11) Comment by jedleland - 05/02/2013

Im sure the typical anonymous right winger would happily admit to being the polar opposite of your typical godless liberal. In that case i dont doubt that our regressive friends would happily embrace the antonyms of many of the variations on liberal provided below. Lets see whats the antonym of tolerant, open-minded, advanced, broadminded, understanding, unprejudiced, impartial, reasonable, enlightened, unbigoted, undogmatic, unbiased, dispassionate, unorthodox, unconventional, freethinking, latitudinarian, magnanimous, fair, free, flexible, idealistic, and high-minded? Oh and dont forget the antonym for progressive (hint: i already used it)

12) Comment by jedleland - 05/02/2013

And just for good measure here are the synonyms for conservative:"traditional, reactionary, conventional, moderate, unprogressive, illiberal, right-wing, ultraconservative, conserving, holding to, preserving, unchanging, stable, constant, firm, obstinate, inflexible, opposed to change, cautious, careful, sober, Tory, rightist, right-of-center, taking no chances, timid, not extreme, undaring, disliking novelty, die-hard, old-line, unreconstructed, hidebound, rearguard, in a rut*, in a groove*, standpat*; see also careful, moderate" not terrible but much less promising im sure youd agree. Yup thesauruses are also part of the liberal media cabal

13) Comment by jedleland - 05/02/2013

By the way it was rhetorical question. even so you obviously didnt search for synonyms of 'liberal' i did and they arent half bad: tolerant, open-minded, receptive, progressive, libertarian, reformist, advanced, left, radical, broadminded, understanding, permissive, lax, indulgent, unprejudiced, impartial, reasonable, enlightened, unbigoted, undogmatic, unbiased, dispassionate, unorthodox, unconventional, avant-garde, broad-gauge, left- wing, left-of-center, freethinking, latitudinarian, magnanimous, fair, free, flexible, idealistic, high-minded, bleeding-heart*; see also lenient." Those look pretty good to me

14) Comment by jedleland - 05/02/2013

Aw you just cut and pasted a bunch of synonyms from thesauras.com and left out the best one 'lordly'. When you copy stuff should at least try to make it look like your own work. Thats just lazy cheatin. Cmon, cheat big!

15) Comment by Whatnow - 05/02/2013

Since so many people think that liberals are know-it-alls, narcissists, arrogant, big-headed, bombastic, cocky, conceited, crowing, egotistic, full of hot air, hifalutin, hot stuff, loudmouth, on ego trip, pompous, pretentious, puffed-up, self-aggrandizing, self-applauding, smart-alecky, snooty, strutting, smug, stuck-up, swaggering, swanky, swollen-headed, too big for one's britches, vainglorious, vaunting, windbag, big talkers, blowhards, blusterers, boasters, braggarts, bull artists, bull-throwers, gasbags, gossipers, grandstanders, show-offs, swelled headed, trumpeters, claims full knowledge, bossy, bully, high and mighty, imperious, insolent, vain, and condescending? I would, but I won't I don't want anyone accusing me of having to resort to name calling and degrading a whole state to win an argument. And Bouncer, I'm just bouncing your stupid comment right back to you. Try saying those things in a crowd of Louisianans without hiding behind your computer. I dare you. And Tea_Slayer, neither would you. It's funny how we can keep each other laughing. Sure, I know facts. I just don't ignore them like you do because they come from a Democrat. And jedleland, to your comment, no, no more than any liberal. Why do you ask? Feeling guilty?

16) Comment by jedleland - 05/02/2013

are right wingers more given to fear, paranoia, racism, and prejudice? thats the cliche isnt it. well our friends at Brock university in canada might have some academic confirmation. Be sure to read to the end! "There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy. The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote. "Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors contributing to bias are uncovered and understood," he said. Earlier studies have found links between low levels of education and higher levels of prejudice, Hodson said, so studying intelligence seemed a logical next step. The researchers turned to two studies of citizens in the United Kingdom, one that has followed babies since their births in March 1958, and another that did the same for babies born in April 1970. The children in the studies had their intelligence assessed at age 10 or 11; as adults ages 30 or 33, their levels of Social conservatives were defined as people who agreed with a laundry list of statements such as "Family life suffers if mum is working full-time," and "Schools should teach children to obey authority." Attitudes toward other races were captured by measuring agreement with statements such as "I wouldn't mind working with people from other races." As suspected, low intelligence in childhood corresponded with racism in adulthood. But the factor that explained the relationship between these two variables was political: When researchers included social conservatism in the analysis, those ideologies accounted for much of the link between brains and bias. People with lower cognitive abilities also had less contact with people of other races. "This finding is consistent with recent research demonstrating that intergroup contact is mentally challenging and cognitively draining, and consistent with findings that contact reduces prejudice," said Hodson, who along with his colleagues published these results online Jan. 5 in the journal Psychological Science. Hodson was quick to note that the despite the link found between low intelligence and social conservatism, the researchers aren't implying that all liberals are brilliant and all conservatives stupid. The research is a study of averages over large groups, he said. "There are multiple examples of very bright conservatives and not-so-bright liberals, and many examples of very principled conservatives and very intolerant liberals," Hodson said. Nosek gave another example to illustrate the dangers of taking the findings too literally. "We can say definitively men are taller than women on average," he said. "But you can't say if you take a random man and you take a random woman that the man is going to be taller. There's plenty of overlap." Nonetheless, there is reason to believe that strict right-wing ideology might appeal to those who have trouble grasping the complexity of the world. "Socially conservative ideologies tend to offer structure and order," Hodson said, explaining why these beliefs might draw those with low intelligence. "Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice." In another study, this one in the United States, Hodson and Busseri compared 254 people with the same amount of education but different levels of ability in abstract reasoning. They found that what applies to racism may also apply to homophobia. People who were poorer at abstract reasoning were more likely to exhibit prejudice against gays. As in the U.K. citizens, a lack of contact with gays and more acceptance of right-wing authoritarianism explained the link. Hodson and Busseri's explanation of their findings is reasonable, Nosek said, but it is correlational. That means the researchers didn't conclusively prove that the low intelligence caused the later prejudice. To do that, you'd have to somehow randomly assign otherwise identical people to be smart or dumb, liberal or conservative. Those sorts of studies obviously aren't possible. The researchers controlled for factors such as education and socioeconomic status, making their case stronger, Nosek said. But there are other possible explanations that fit the data. For example, Nosek said, a study of left-wing liberals with stereotypically naïve views like "every kid is a genius in his or her own way," might find that people who hold these attitudes are also less bright. In other words, it might not be a particular ideology that is linked to stupidity, but extremist views in general. "My speculation is that it's not as simple as their model presents it," Nosek said. "I think that lower cognitive capacity can lead to multiple simple ways to represent the world, and one of those can be embodied in a right-wing ideology where 'People I don't know are threats' and 'The world is a dangerous place'. ... Another simple way would be to just assume everybody is wonderful." Darn liberal eggheads. wait til the govt comes for them and theyll be asking us real americans to protect them. Grrrr.

17) Comment by Bouncer - 05/02/2013

I forgot to mention....Louisiana stupid lacks originality, too. It has a tendency to copy others, substituting a word here and there, as if plagiarism can offset its deficit in brains. When observing it in operation, one is tempted to ask, "What now?" or maybe "What next?" But all efforts to comprehend it are futile. It is beyond understanding.

18) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 05/02/2013

Whatnow, you would know a fact if it bit you on the rear. Thanks for the laugh.

19) Comment by Whatnow - 05/02/2013

There are two kinds of stupid, regular stupid and the vote for Obama stupid. Obama stupid is a very, very special kind of stupid, as it is only out for itself, cares nothing for the education, hard work and self reliance of others, and blithely ignores the facts staring it in the face, even when those facts are documented in multiple, reputable sources. You can't teach Obama stupid anything. You couldn't teach it to draw its hand out of the fire. It just begs for more government.

20) Comment by Bouncer - 05/02/2013

Tea_Slayer: What have I told you before? There are two kinds of stupid: regular stupid and Louisiana stupid. Louisiana stupid is a very, very special kind of stupid, as it is only out for itself, cares nothing for the comfort, safety, and convenience of others, and blithely ignores facts staring it in the face, even when those facts are documented in multiple, reputable sources. You can't teach Louisiana stupid anything. You couldn't teach it to draw its hand out of the fire.

21) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 05/02/2013

I see [e-mail] is still pushing the lie about LA having the same number of state workers as TX (even after it was slapped down at least twice).

22) Comment by DMJ - 05/02/2013

I hear you, Brenda. Unfortunately, Jindal's term-limited after this term anyway, so we won't have a chance to throw him out. We can always vote against him when/if he runs for President. How ironic would that be- Jindal losing Louisiana? What sweet karmic justice that would be.

23) Comment by 8point6 - 05/02/2013

I see our views/letters to the editor are back to their old selves. Don't forget. It's Bush's fault, also.

24) Comment by [e-mail] - 05/02/2013

I have to agree with # 1 on this one; Bobby has definitely decreased the number of state workers, though we still have as many as Texas, and what is a "disaster worker"? One of those who scurry from place to place following misery to skim off FEMA dollars?

25) Comment by Being_Stupid - 05/02/2013

All the commentators below, like the writer of this letter, probably have nonessential government jobs that serve no purpose, which is why they hate Bobby Jindal because he has steadily cut the fat from government by eliminating these non essential jobs. These government folks need to get a real job in the private sector. Must be nice to retire at 50 with a full pension as a "disaster worker". What does a "disaster worker" do for a living?

26) Comment by Being_Stupid - 05/02/2013

Bobby Jindal is not a dictator. The overwhelming number of taxpayers that twice elected him to office are tired of paying for bloated, nonessential government and stupid government jobs like "disaster worker". Bobby is the first Louisiana Governor to decrease the size of government, not increase it at exponential rates like the Democrats before him.

27) Comment by crazycajun - 05/02/2013

Ya'll wanted and voted for good, open and fair government. Not much of that going around the last five years. The only good thing about the way L'il booby has wrecked the state is whomever runs against a repub all he has to say is "ya'll want more of the same ?" LOL. Thanks booby.

28) Comment by spqr - 05/02/2013

Seig Heil, Mein Jindal!

29) Comment by InPVille - 05/02/2013

How long now has it been that the Louisiana Governor had exceptional power and influence? This is why it is foolish to grant too much power to government or any part of government. Sooner or later the entity is in the hands of someone/those you don't agree with. Then you begin to believe you have taken on the aspect of that metal fastener which has a tapered shank with a helical thread spiraling down it's length.

30) Comment by gary - 05/02/2013

Brenda, Bighug laid the ole hammer on the nail head.

31) Comment by Bighug - 05/02/2013

Welcome back, Brenda. It didn't take you long to figure out we have King Jindal running things now. He keeps in power the same way as most of the politicians here. Gene Mills ordains them, and his group of hate-mongers vote them in.