More straights are marching under the gay rights banner. credit: Creative Commons

In light of my last post on President Obama’s repositioning in support of gay-marriage rights, I found this recent GOP strategy memo fascinating. It’s from President George W. Bush’s 2004 pollster, Jan R. van Lohuizen. Within a few years of Bush’s re-election victory – after a campaign heavy with anti-gay-marriage tub-thumping, van Lohuizen crunched the numbers and recommended that Republicans consider the following (my emphasis):

Support for same sex marriage has been growing and in the last few years support has grown at an accelerated rate with no sign of slowing down.   A review of public polling shows that up to 2009 support for gay marriage increased at a rate of 1% a year.  Starting in 2010 the change in the level of support accelerated to 5% a year.

Again: this accelerating change in attitudes is the real political watershed, not Obama’s belated announcement in support of gay marriage. If van Lohuizen’s analysis is accurate, that means as many as 3 million voters will become significantly more accepting of gay marriage between now and election day. And many of those who “evolve,” as Obama did, will be swing voters in swing states. The economy will decide their vote more than any other issue, of course. But if it continues to improve slightly, voters who aren’t totally frustrated will review other issues before casting a vote. Thus Obama’s announcement broadened the campaign agenda by inserting the contentious gay marriage debate into the mix, and he’s on the side with momentum.

Earlier, I looked at the trouble this issue will cause the GOP, especially among its fundagelical supporters in southern states. For example, the 2008 Louisiana Republican Party platform reads:

We believe homosexuality should not be established as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle either in public education or in public policy. We do not believe public schools should be used to teach children that homosexuality is normal, and we do not believe that taxpayers should fund benefit plans for unmarried partners.
…
We oppose actions, such as “marriage” or the adoption of children by same-sex couples. We support the Defense of Marriage Act and support constitutional amendments to both the U.S. and the Louisiana Constitutions to ensure that marriage is limited to the union of one man and one woman.

If national attitudes are indeed trending towards gay marriage at a pace of 5 percent per year, it won’t take long before such views appear wildly out of step – not just with the nation, but with the national Republican Party.

But what about Louisiana’s Democratic politicians? We shouldn’t leave them unmentioned, even if they’ve become scarce in statewide offices. Don’t expect Senator Mary Landrieu to “evolve” on gay marriage any time soon. In fact, the issue might be a boon, because her opposition allows her to buck the national Democratic party (once again) in a way that will appeal to most Louisianians. For a long time I’ve assumed that this will be Sen. Landrieu’s last term. But if she decides to run for re-election, her continued opposition to gay marriage certainly won’t hurt her chances.

The situation for her brother, New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu is much more ticklish. As a leader of a city with a large gay population that regularly appeals to gay tourists (not to mention his being a Louisiana pol who is not afraid to identify himself as a liberal), Landrieu could come out for gay marriage with little political risk. Thus far he’s been quietly opposed. Maybe he just doesn’t believe in it, based on his religious convictions as a Catholic. Either way, an experienced operator like Landrieu understands that if he harbors any ambition to return to statewide office, announced support for gay marriage would be an immediate deal-killer.

The central question I keep returning to is this: what accounts for the dramatic change in national attitudes on gay marriage in recent years? We’ve reached and passed a tipping point, but no one can explain precisely why. In less than a decade’s time, we’re seeing two presidents (Bush and Obama) use different sides of an issue – marriage! –  in bids for re-election.

Simple demographics can’t explain the trend. It’s true that most people who die today are against gay marriage, while most of those registering to vote these days are for it (or at least not bothered by it). But that can’t explain the acceleration in the poll numbers. Did popular culture bring us here –  New Orleans’ own Ellen Degeneres and popular sitcoms like ABC’s “Modern Family”? Or is our liberalized attitude just a cumulative effect of the straight community having more contact with “out” gay couples who, like them, just strive to form loving families and raise well-adjusted kids?

Tell me what you think.

It’s important to remember that when Obama first ran for president five years ago, polls showed that a clear majority of Americans still opposed gay marriage. At that time, Obama (prudently) “believed” marriage was strictly for heterosexuals. But, with one eye on the poll trends and the other on his liberal base, Obama loudly hedged and said his opinion on the issue was “evolving.” So now that public opinion polls have firmly crossed over, and a majority of Americans now support gay marriage, the president has followed suit, and just in time for his re-election campaign.

Leadership!

Churchgoers rally for gay rights in Boston. Creative Commons photo

In the interview announcing his support for gay marriage, Obama justified his view with a political trifecta of references: to family, the military, and religion. He said his thinking had been changed by his daughters’ views (check), the sacrifices of gay members of the armed forces (check), and the golden rule, which instructs us to treat others as we’d want to be treated (check).

I’d give Obama a lot more credit if he had announced this a year ago and, instead of standing behind his daughters, the military and the bible, had candidly admitted to everyone:

“America, I’ve always been for marriage equality, but in order to get elected president I decided to compromise my beliefs and support bigotry. I sacrificed principle for ambition, and reaped the rewards. Politicians may do it all the time, but that doesn’t make it right. So I want to apologize to everyone, especially the gay community, for this inexcusable lapse. Hereafter, I promise to fight for marriage equality because I believe gays should be allowed to tie the knot, and become as miserable as the rest of us.”

Perhaps that last part could stand a little polish, but you catch my drift. When a president announces a new belief after tens of millions of Americans have already felt a similar change of heart, that’s not exactly bravery under fire. More like leading from behind. I give him credit but, again, the real watershed is the massive sea change on gay marriage that has already occurred, in a very short span of time. What accounts for it? The LGBT movement? Changing demographics? Popular culture, and TV shows like “Will & Grace” and “Glee”?

On an issue like marriage, how did we go from 70/30 against to 50/45 for, in only 16 years? That’s the real “watershed” that needs examination.

After the conservative Tea Party movement powered Republicans in 2010 to a new majority in the House of Representatives, I wrote a column pointing out the liberal gay marriage political trend lurking beneath the headlines. Despite the election results, I noted that polls indicated a majority of Americans would soon favor marriage equality. At the time, I stated:

Early in his career Obama was for gay marriage, then prior to running for president he was against it. It’s an indicator of how quickly attitudes are changing that Obama might switch his view again, out of political necessity, to win re-election in 2012.

Apologies for the self-quote, but I need to counter the gobs of lame political analysis now circulating in the mediasphere. The idea that Obama’s admission wasn’t a calculated move is total horse pucky. It makes perfect political sense. By supporting gay marriage, he tables it as an issue at the Democratic convention while simultaneously elevating it as an issue for the presidential election. Sure, it will ensure his defeat in states he won in 2008, like North Carolina and Indiana. But those were likely lost anyway, and Obama’s team will happily trade that support if it means drawing enough lukewarm moderate voters to their side in key regions, like the Interstate 4 corridor in central Florida, which will determine his re-election prospects.

What does this have to do with New Orleans?

New Orleans fashions as a libertine city in a conservative region. Online, we market ourselves to gay tourists, with promotions featuring actor Bryan Batt from the wildly popular “Mad Men” TV show. And on Labor Day weekend, gays will celebrate in the French Quarter at the annual Southern Decadence festival. But will New Orleans continue to draw the same (lucrative) crowds, if Louisiana remains a stubborn outpost of intolerance in a country that increasingly accepts gay marriage?

Key political tensions that will affect national politics in the coming years are already at play right here in Louisiana. But first let me argue that the gay marriage issue is much more politically important than it seems. Among many, it reaches down into the subconscious in an elemental way that’s not fully appreciated (or reflected in poll metrics). Those who are opposed to gay marriage – often conservative fundagelical men — are nauseated by the whole thing. They can’t get past the “yuck” factor associated with what they imagine goes  on in gay bedrooms. On the flip side are others – often moderate independent women – who are revolted by the intolerance displayed by the supporters of “traditional” marriage. In short, they feel, “I want to be on the other side of those haters; they remind me of my crabby uncle.” Broadly speaking, the former type helps Republicans run up big margins of victory in Southern states, while the latter group is the key swing vote in the key swing states. The Obama campaign doesn’t mind energizing the former if it can appeal to the latter.

Let’s remind ourselves how far the politics of this have changed in recent years.

In 2000 political strategist Karl Rove believed that four million conservative Christian voters decided not to vote when it was disclosed that candidate George W. Bush had once been arrested for drunk driving. That’s why Bush didn’t win in a walk, according to Rove. While Rove has never offered statistical proof of his claim, everyone seems to accept it rather than consider the possibility that Rove’s estimates were wildly optimistic. Either way, the important thing is that Rove apparently believed it (or at least couldn’t allow his ego to believe otherwise.)

So, in 2004, Rove orchestrated a clever plan to ensure a better fundagelical turnout for Bush’s re-election. It was not centered around Bush, but rather, around various anti-gay marriage initiatives set up by state legislatures that would draw social conservatives to the polls on the national election day.

Kudos to The Times-Picayune’s Bruce Nolan for adding the following historical perspective to the Washington Post article on Obama’s announcement reprinted in today’s local paper:

Republican U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise criticized Obama for his statement and its timing.

“At a time when our economy is struggling and gas prices are skyrocketing, it’s surprising President Obama is more focused on advancing his extreme social agenda rather than solving the economic and fiscal problems that are holding America back,” Scalise said.

While a state representative in 2004, Scalise was lead sponsor of a constitutional amendment approved by 78 percent of Louisiana voters, that defines marriage in Louisiana as being solely a “union of one man and one woman” and prohibits state judges and officials from recognizing same-sex marriages and civil unions sanctioned in other states.

It’s funny that Scalise’s main argument is not against Obama’s position as much as against his priorities. “Don’t we have bigger things to worry about?” Scalise seems to say – as if we didn’t in 2004.

It’s worth noting that, while Bush won re-election, he and Rove went back to the same political well, and tried to make “defense of marriage” an issue prior to the mid-term elections in 2006, which saw Democrats reclaim the House of Representatives. Notably, the Tea Party movement and successful GOP candidates found success in 2010 by de-emphasizing social issues such as opposition to gay marriage.

While I’m not claiming that the issue was the driving force in American politics for the past decade, it’s very interesting to track the change in national attitude as well as the political results over that same span. The issue has unseen importance, because it relates to the key tensions in the Republican party. The GOP has a real problem on their hands with this one. Their libertarian and pragmatic moderate factions are increasingly pro-gay marriage. But their fundagelical true believers, as well as the Republican pols who painted themselves into an ideological corner to appeal to them, will have to continue standing in stalwart opposition to gay marriage, as the rest of the country continues to “evolve” around them.

Scalise has no fear of political repercussion in Louisiana. Even the local Tea Party organizations here have a strong bent toward “social issues” that you don’t see in other regions. And don’t forget the immense influence the Louisiana Family Forum has on “pro-family” state legislation, as well as the long reach of Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council, which organizes “pro-family” voters nationwide.

Fundagelicals are a key part of the Republican base, and they sincerely oppose the national trend toward  gay marriage. I’ve got to hand it to them. In a way they were right. Their concept of marriage has come under “attack,” much more quickly than I ever would’ve anticipated. But what are they going to do now?

I wouldn’t expect them to quickly “evolve” on this issue in stride with the national trend. And in conservative Louisiana neither they, nor their favored representatives, Scalise among them, will have to change. But that’s why it’s doubly revealing that instead of a full-throttle defense of traditional marriage, Scalise opted to criticize Obama for his timing.

The political implications of this watershed have very interesting implications, especially for rising stars like Gov. Bobby Jindal – who has built his career on not eschewing social or moral issues. Jindal’s anti-gay marriage views will hold up fine in the Pelican State for years to come, but how will they look to a national electorate in, say, 2016?

I’m fascinated by this issue, and its potential effect on how our state’s political leadership is perceived nationally, as well as the potential for political backlash that might hurt New Orleans’ tourist economy. More immediately, I believe the gay marriage issue – and the cleavages it exacerbates in the Republican base – will continue to affect political outcomes in national politics in the next few cycles.

Then in today’s Times-Picayune, Bruce Alpert writes about former Rep. Bill Jefferson’s “near-death experience” a decade ago. After receiving quintuple bypass heart surgery, Jefferson realized he had little inheritance to leave his family. (Unlike Long, Jefferson grew up dirt poor.)

But in the first days after the heart surgery, his plan was to quit Congress and take a job with a wealthy businessman in which, as he told friends, he would help find potentially lucrative investments and then share in the profits. Instead, Jefferson decided to stay in Congress while he tried to help businesses win contracts in western Africa, where he had considerable influence. In return, he demanded payments be made to businesses controlled by his family.

It turned out to be the worst mistake of his life.

Jefferson: Jail-bound on Friday

It’s fascinating to read how Jefferson believed God intervened to “save his life” and then decided to repay this divine gift by adopting … an accelerated approach to graft while in office! Why not just go the traditional route – retire to the private sector and become a highly-paid lobbyist or consultant?

Alpert’s article reminds us that on Friday Jefferson will begin serving a 13-year sentence for public corruption and bribery. His brother Mose died last year while serving time for bribery, and his sister Betty confessed to “looting $1 million in taxpayer funds from sham charities that purported to help the poor and disadvantaged.”

After Richard Leche was elected Governor of Louisiana in 1936 he said, “When I took the oath of office I didn’t take any vow of poverty.” Four years later he was sentenced to prison for mail fraud. (Lesser known fact: while serving his time, he was known as “Con Leche.” Rimshot!)

But maybe Gov. Leche unwittingly had the right idea. Perhaps politicians should take a vow of poverty along with their oath of office. Because these days, if pols aren’t brazenly corrupt during their time in office, it’s only because they arrange to enrich themselves as soon as they’re out of office. (See, for example, former Rep. Billy Tauzin’s posturing to line up his future health care lobbying gig, or former Sen. John Breaux’s lobbying for Big Pharma.) In short, they spend their time in office auditioning for the lobbyist gig they dream of.  The flip side to these maneuvers by avaricious pols are, of course, the rich who think they are qualified for political office simply because they’ve already made (or inherited) a lot of dough. (See, for example, Gov. Rick Scott of Florida, or current GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.)

Yeah, I know. At this point, it seems ridiculous to think we can remove the influence and allure of money from politics. (See, for example, presidential candidate Buddy Roemer.) One thing is for sure, though, the prosecutions of recent “poster boys” of political corruption like Bill Jefferson and former Rep. Duke Cunningham of California haven’t satisfied voters. In recent years, Congressional leadership has switched back and forth between Democrats and Republicans, yet voter approval of Congress is still miserably low. The electorate remains restless and dissatisfied. Is it too utopian to think that, perhaps one day soon, voters might figure out that the problem isn’t the criminal officeholders, per se, so much as the corrupt system that allows them represent corporate donors while in office and then go to work for them afterwards?

In other words, Jefferson’s “mistake” was to bend a system (Huey Long-style) that was already perfectly bent to suit his financial needs! Instead of taking the quick bribes, he should’ve got out, and cashed in as a lobbyist/businessman. The current revolving door is just as good. It’s bribery on lay-away plan, with much less legal risk – so long as frustrated voters don’t figure out the game and find a way to vent their fury.

Earl Long: close-lipped

Eight years ago, I was up at odd hours of the night, helping my wife care for a newborn. After a bit of noodling on the internet I discovered and joined the wonderful (and wonderfully small) community of South Louisiana bloggers. We discussed politics and current events and mocked the stupid things written on other websites. It was fun and (for me) much more productive than yelling at cable TV news.

So, yes, I understand the therapeutic value of online opinion writing. It can be cathartic to vent about topics and “release” your published rants for all to see. Sometimes my posts would stir passions in my blog’s comment section and the arguing would continue ad nauseam.

There was a drawback to all this fun: Unedited words written in the heat of the moment get archived. Then later, at a distance, selected quotes can appear short-sighted and harsh. Regrettable, even. I got a dose of comeuppance last week when I attended the 10th anniversary show of Politics with a Punch, and conversed with numerous politicos and pundits I had previously called thieves, liars or idiots.

Painful as those encounters were, the stakes are rather low for an opinion writer like me. Public figures, on the other hand, can get crucified for a loose, acidic tongue. Even if a well-known person pens a thousand informed opinions on Facebook or Twitter, if they slip up once (and it’s a doozy) none of those other things matter. The error will go viral – “He said what?!” - and that one-time stupidity will create a lasting impression.

You’ll recall that federal prosecutor Sal Perricone submitted his resignation to U.S. Attorney Jim Letten last month, after his online rants at Nola.com were uncovered. Perricone wrote under a nom de plume, and while he probably uttered a wise word here or there, for the most part he arrogantly chastised others for being stupid. His constant smarter-than-thou posture, combined with his insider-style viewpoint, raised suspicions among landfill magnate Fred Heebe’s legal team. Last week U.S. Attorney Jim Letten recused his office from the investigation into Heebe’s River Birch landfill, likely because of Perricone’s online diatribes.

On Monday, the Times Picayune reported:

In his anonymous online rants, federal prosecutor Sal Perricone took a lot of chances – trashing federal judges, criticizing his boss and encouraging gun owners to go to former Mayor Ray Nagin’s house, for instance. But his most ill-advised comment may have been one in which he suggested James Carter, a former City Council member and now a top adviser to Mayor Mitch Landrieu, had committed a crime.

In doing so, Perricone violated a cardinal rule of federal prosecutors: He made reference to a federal investigation, one that was unknown to the public.

Perricone’s lawyers say he broke no law, but he has certainly suffered professional consequences for his “ill-advised” statements. I’ve called on Perricone to apologize for coaxing gun owners to visit Mayor Nagin’s house.

According to The Militant website:

Jason Giroir, [an NOPD officer who shot Justin Sipp in a shootout March 1] was forced to resign from the force … over racist comments he posted online in response to a WWL-TV article about a rally supporting Trayvon Martin. He wrote, “Act like a Thug Die like one!” After another reader, Eddie Johnson, criticized his comment, Giroir wrote, “Eddie come on down to our town with a ‘Hoodie’ and you can join Martin in HELL and talk about your racist stories.”

Again, nothing excuses Perricone’s violent-sounding innuendo or Giroir’s racially-tinged threat. I condemn those statements and agree with their consequences. However, the rest of us shouldn’t feel a false sense of security merely because we haven’t expressed similarly hateful garbage. Perricone and Giroir are extreme examples, but we’ve all made ill-advised statements at one time or another.

And our evolving social media technologies – in addition to being convenient, fun, and therapeutic – increasingly expose our fleeting thoughts to public review, even years later. The potential repercussions  are considerable – and getting heavier.

Already Facebook is blamed for one in five U.S. divorces, and one in three in the U.K.. The next boomlet will probably be employers “screening” applicants’ social media histories.

We’re slow to catch up, too. We’ve used email and cell phones for a couple of decades, yet still errantly assume our conversations on those devices are “private,” despite ever-present news stories about people getting busted for thing they’ve written or through the GPS function on their phones.

As we willingly post more and more data about ourselves, potential employers and others will be able to use algorithms to analyze our online content for “problems.” Perhaps, after receiving poor service, you once expressed a strongly negative opinion about a company. Well, guess what? The company you’re currently applying to work for now owns the company you trashed, and they have a very sophisticated online background check. Is it possible that your “ill-advised” statements will affect your hiring? Is it so crazy to imagine that perhaps one day, instead of a credit score, we’ll also have “social media volatility and risk” scores? Poorly chosen words might hound us worse than collection agencies.

Sure, there’s the old “if you got nothing to hide, you don’t have to worry” attitude. But that logic has led to public sanction for crime cameras, traffic cameras, flying drones, and cell phone monitoring, as well as online data aggregation and profiling. Eventually we’ll have our houses equipped with cameras in each room (monitored by a security firm) “to keep us safe.” Who knows, maybe that’s already happening.

Technology trends have made for the promulgation and wide exposure of hasty opinions. There’s less and less thought behind each word in our online texts, while our mistakes can get widely broadcast and permanently archived. Impulsive statements are encouraged, despite these elevated risks. Makes a social media stalwart like myself wonder if wily 1950s-era Governor Earl Long’s quote, with a little updating, is as true as ever:

Don’t write anything you can phone. Don’t phone anything you can talk. Don’t talk anything you can whisper. Don’t whisper anything you can smile. Don’t smile anything you can nod. Don’t nod anything you can wink.

Acro-gymnastics demands a partnership that combines strength and technical precision with the musicality of dance. credit: wikipedia

As work continues on the longer-form topics mentioned in previous posts, here are two notes about local sports news:

1) New Orleans Saints owner Tom Benson purchased the New Orleans Hornets basketball team last week, having convinced NBA commissioner David Stern that he represented the best local ownership option to maintain the team’s future in New Orleans.

Recalling Benson’s flirtation with other cities before and after the Federal Flood, Jeffrey at the Library Chronicles blog wrote:

Benson’s first instinct was to leverage the flood of 2005 as an excuse to execute his already-in-the-works plan to remove the Saints to San Antonio. But that was shut down after much arm twisting by an NFL uncharacteristically sensitive to shame.

Sometimes the decisions we’re forced into making are the luckiest ones, though. Benson went on to benefit from the ferocious love for the Saints exhibited by the recovering city he had no faith in. He now enjoys a package of concessions from the taxpayers of Louisiana more lucrative than what he had hoped for prior to the flood. When the Hornets signed a new lease that includes state-funded stadium enhancements, is it any surprise Benson would want in on that?

Free money from the state is Tom Benson’s business. He has long understood the importance of protecting that business. The importance of being “the only game” in a small market has been a point of emphasis in Benson’s talks to other NFL owners. He has taken aggressive steps to protect his monopoly in the past. When the creation of the Colorado Rockies displaced the AAA Denver Zephyrs in 1993, Benson scrambled to prevent the Zs from relocating into his territory.

Read Jeffrey’s entire post. It’s bold, and makes points that few other local sports writers are making. Judging from the media’s football-related questions to Benson and Stern during two recent NBA press conferences, they’d like to treat this Hornets ownership news as a happy off-season Saints story. Gross.

In that vein, a recent caller to Kaare Johnson’s local talk-radio show suggested the Hornets change their name to the “Latter Day Saints.” I chuckled, because it would balance out the absurdity of the Utah Jazz team name, which was never changed after the team moved there from New Orleans in 1979.

2) The World Acrobatic Gymnastics Championships are being held this week in Orlando, and the Finals are being televised this afternoon on ESPN. Acrobatic gymnastics enthusiasts tell me that it is an “awe-inspiring Olympic Sport which combines the beauty of dance with the strength and agility of acrobatics.”

Whoop-de-freakin’-do, you might reply. What does that have to do with the Saints?

Well, it doesn’t have anything to do with the Saints (Sacre bleu!). But– stay with me– it does have a lot to do with our city because New Orleans’ own Crescent City Gymnastics has seven local athletes on the U.S. National Team!

Pretty darn impressive, right?

In recent weeks, I’ve learned a little about the sport, which includes choreographed dance combined with acrobatic tumbling, pyramid-building, and flight elements. To appreciate it better, one should think of it in terms of Cirque du Soleil.

I’m told that this will mark the third trip to a World Championship for national elite women’s pairs
champs Beth Landeche (from New Orleans) and Nicole Barrilleaux (from Metairie). The pair placed seventh and fourth in their last two championships, and are considered the strongest women’s pair that the United States has had in five years. Bravo to them!

Here is video of Landeche and Barrileaux practicing a routine.

A release penned by local fans of acro-gymnastics touted our local athletes and their coaches. Here’s an excerpt:

The level 8 Jr. Trio consisting of Allyson McPhaille, Nya Jones and Carol Crochet are alternates to the World age-group team. Again, this is no small feat, as they have been together for less than a year and impressed the US technical committee so much they were honored to earn this alternate spot. Only seven American athletes qualified for this competition.
…
The New Orleans Area has a rich history of very successful showings in Acro-Gymnastics, a sport that is much more prominent in Asia and Europe. This resurgence of world class athletes bodes well for New Orleans and is a tribute to the first generation of Gymnasts that put New Orleans on the map for Acro-Gymnastics 20 years ago. Louisiana’s second generation of acrogymnasts are now coaches. Crescent City Gymnastics owners and coaches Julie Dupree-Desantis and Gawain Dupree are New Orleans Area natives and competed internationally themselves. They are now turning out world class athletes in their own gym.

ESPN3 will air coverage of the USA Gymnastics World Acrobatic Championships beginning at 3pm today. You can also stream it online.

Disclosure: Last year, my youngest daughter took lessons at Crescent City Gymnastics.

I’ll footnote a bizarre event in the history of New Orleans acrobatics that precedes the reference in the quote above. This one reaches back 50 years, and comes from “Mr. New Orleans” the vastly entertaining memoir of Frenchy Brouillette– French Quarter pimp (and Edwin Edwards cousin)– co-written by Matthew Randazzo V:

[Mob boss Carlos Marcello], in those days, occasionally liked to take in the shows at the go-go joints — but he wasn’t ogling the showgirls. Whatever his faults, I don’t think I met a single man in New Orleans more devoted to his wife and more monogamous than Carlos. He sincerely seemed uninterested in other women.

On the other hand, Carlos was [expletive] obsessed with acrobats and flamenco dancers, two breeds of entertainers that frequently performed as warm-up acts in the burlesque bars. After an acrobat or Spanish dancer performed, Carlos would deafen the entire room with his whistling, clapping, and rabid shouts of approval. Afterwards, you could see him cornering an acrobat and peppering him with questions like an eager schoolboy. “Man, how do ya even get dat limber?”

Our local acro-gymnasts haven’t received the press they deserve for their accomplishments. We should be very proud to have such high-caliber athletes representing our city (and country) in world-class competition. So, even if you assume that the sport might not be your cup of tea, why not check it out anyway?

Do it for Carlos.

Unintelligent design? Photo doctored by coastal scientist Len Bahr makes fun of the Baton Rouge Community College chancellor's faith in creationism. credit: Len Bahr

Defenders of the Louisiana Science Education Act often pose as friends of free inquiry. They argue that high school science teachers should be permitted to teach their students “all sides” of controversial topics such as evolution.

The scientific community largely disagrees and says there is no productive debate to be had about basic evolutionary theory. Over a century’s worth of evidence supports the theory, and there’s no credible scientific alternative to it. There is no academic “controversy” about evolution, unless one invents it out of pseudo-science. To pretend otherwise – to claim that evolutionary theory is merely “one side of the story” – perverts the very idea of objective scientific inquiry. Not to mention its profound disservice to Louisiana’s young minds.

On occasion, some LSEA critics have upped the ante and asked, if “free inquiry” about evolution is good enough for high school students, why don’t creationists insist of mandating similar “debates” in state college classrooms, as well.  LSEA proponents have mostly kept mum on that score, perhaps for fear of drawing (more) negative national attention to Louisiana. But a recent post by coastal scientist Len Bahr makes me wonder if “debates” about evolution in college science classrooms are not far in our future.

Bahr informs us that Andrea Miller, the new chancellor of Baton Rouge Community College, has a Ph.D. in cellular biology – but says she doesn’t believe in evolution because she’s a “Christian.” (As if the two beliefs are mutually exclusive.) Miller teaches evolution in the classroom, but only because it’s “what is written in the textbook.” Otherwise, she doesn’t personally believe in the foundational theory of all life sciences.

Click here and read Bahr’s entire post. Bahr helpfully transcribed a fascinating exchange during an interview between Miller and talk radio host Jim Engster. He compares the pseudo-science undergirding creationism with the pseudo-history cited by Holocaust deniers, a rhetorical ploy that may be inflammatory but that can not be called inaccurate.

It’s worth noting that Gov. Bobby Jindal supports the LSEA, even though he was a biology major at an Ivy League school. Now, influential conservative pundits are urging Republican Mitt Romney, the likely GOP Presidential nominee, to consider Jindal for vice president. One can only imagine the national attention Jindal’s support for the LSEA would draw to the Bayou State, if Romney were to offer him the veep slot.

Mutual infiltrators Damon, left, and DiCaprio duke it out in Scorsese's "The Departed." credit: Warner Bros.

Referring to my post on the online rants that cost Sal Perricone his job as a federal prosecutor, a reader asked: “Mr. Moseley of ‘The Lens’: I don’t mean any disrespect, but could you just speak ‘plain English’?”

Lo siento, mi amigo. Lo siento.

What can I say? I’m not a logical positivist. I’m partial to “answers” that end in question marks. I like to throw a little subtext and implication into the mix. My columns are structured to reward a close, thoughtful read. If you’re skimming them to find The Point, I’ll save you the trouble. Here’s my strong, unwavering belief for today: “Bad guys = yucky!”

For the rest of you, let’s begin a twisted ride that will last a few posts. Maybe along the way we’ll discover new tea leaves to ponder.

Remember “The Departed,” director Martin Scorsese’s picture about Boston gangsters and police infiltrating each other? Leonardo DiCaprio plays Billy, a police mole in the Boston mob, while Matt Damon plays Colin, a mob infiltrator in the state police. In different scenes, both characters learn that mob boss Frank Costello, whom they work for (or pretend to work for), is a protected FBI informant. Upon discovering this twist, Billy tries to convince his Police Captain: “Aren’t they always trying to make a federal case [against Costello]? And it never gets made?”

(Spoiler alert!!) Then, in a final scene, Colin interrogates Costello about his federal connections before killing him.

COLIN: You’re an FBI informant

…
COSTELLO: Jesus, Colin, grow up. Course I’m talking to the FBI.

COLIN: Do they know who I am?

COSTELLO says nothing for a moment.

COSTELLO: I never gave up anybody who wasn’t goin’ down anyway.

COLIN instantly raises the pistol to shoot him.

COLIN: Did you give me up?

It’s amusing how both moles are shocked(!) to discover that an organized-crime kingpin would collaborate with the feds to protect himself. How dare he arrange a personal “insurance” policy with the suits! Then it dawns on the moles that they’ve been risking their lives for much smaller stakes than they assumed. The game was fixed. The stings based on their hard-won information were intentionally botched by the Feds, so Costello could continue serving them as “bait” that would lure other big fish into the hands of national law enforcement interests.

I like that the storyline doesn’t revolve around the glorification of the mob’s omerta code of silence, or the solemn “law and order” oath taken by police. It shows the ethical gray areas at even the highest levels on both sides: the feds will sabotage a state police sting operation so as not to lose a prized informant, while the crime kingpin will rat out his associates for purposes of self-preservation. Each side undoubtedly thinks they’re ultimately “playing” their enemy; they’ll never tip their entire hand.

Speak English, Moseley! Are you saying that there might be collaboration between the feds and organized crime in the current highly publicized investigations in Greater New Orleans?!

No. I have no evidence that there’s an organized crime angle to the current federal investigations into Jefferson Parish officials and businesses, much less cooperation. But if, like me, you suspect such a link does exist, and yet you’re still operating under the assumption that such cooperation would be unprecedented or unthinkable, perhaps you too need to “grow up.”

Neither side is immune to infiltration. And neither side is, dare I say, above secret, high-level cooperation.

An 1892 caricature shows New Orleans' notorious Emma Johnson luring passersby into her house of ill repute.

John Edwards is making headlines, again, for allegedly being a … john. The New York City crime news site DNAinfo reports that a prostitute claims she serviced Edwards while working for Anna Gristina, the “Millionaire Madam,” during one of Edward’s campaign fundraising trips to the city in 2007.

You may recall that, after his unsuccessful run for president in 2004 (and his appearance as veep on the Democratic ticket that year) John Edwards quickly looked ahead to the next election in 2008. Despite announcing his second candidacy in New Orleans, Edwards lost to Barack Obama. After he dropped out, there were rumors that Edwards would fancy being Obama’s attorney general. Thankfully that didn’t happen, because little has gone well for Edwards during the past four years. He was forced to admit that he cheated on his cancer-stricken wife. Then last year he pleaded not guilty “to federal charges that he solicited and secretly spent more than $925,000 to hide his mistress and their baby from the public at the height of his 2008 White House campaign.”

Now there are reports that Edwards “cheated” on his mistress:

Edwards is the first public figure attached to Gristina’s “black book,” which sits at the heart of her alleged $15-million prostitution ring. Gristina, also dubbed the “Soccer Mom Madam,” has pleaded not guilty to a single charge of promoting prostitution.

Soccer Mom Madam? What did she do, cart her working girls around in a mini-van?

The DNAinfo story claims that

Gristina’s reputed “black book” client list allegedly contains powerful, wealthy, politically-connected and influential players, according to sources familiar with her estimated $15 million New York prostitution empire.
…
[The investigation] started in 2008 with the humble arrest of a 20-something woman hauled in on a criminal charge not related to prostitution.

The woman volunteered that she was secretly a high-end hooker working for a “Millionaire Madam” who repeatedly bragged of having law enforcement and a cadre of powerbrokers in her pocket.

Well, then. Remember back in 2007, when the case of Jeane Palfrey, the “D.C. Madam” made big news? Palfrey had conducted business for over a decade and had records of 15,000 client’s phone numbers. Many of Palfrey’s clients were likely “powerful, wealthy and politically-connected,” too. Yet only a scant few names from the black book were ever publicized. The most famous, of course, was David Vitter, Louisiana’s own junior senator.

Before appearing at the trial, one of Palfrey’s working girls hanged herself. Then, after being convicted and sentenced to 55 years for racketeering and prostitution, Palfrey also hanged herself, apparently to avoid prison. At the time, investigative reporter Dan Moldea remarked, “You have to remember that all those who worked for her service and those who used it — none of them were held to account, or punished. And now, she is dead.”

Similarly, New Orleanians may recall Jeanette Maier, New Orleans’ “Canal Street Madam,” who I referred to in my previous post. Federal prosecutors charged women involved in the prostitution ring, but let their (male) clients off the hook. Very few names have ever surfaced, though news reports confirm Maier’s claim that “the Canal Street Brothel … had 500 customers, including doctors, judges, lawyers and many, many politicians.”

Some wonder why the johns never get charged and rarely get embarrassed, when a house of prostitution falls. Well, the simple answer seems to be: too many powerful men are in on it! The powerful and well-connected have an incentive to let these high-end prostitution networks expand and prosper because if enough doctors, lawyers and political chieftains are involved, then who’s going to cry foul? It’s like the old stag parties and orgies from, say, 50 years ago – it’s not really a crime worth worrying about if enough bigwigs are debauching themselves.

And those who don’t know the “rules” get set straight real quick:

“What the f— do you think you’re doing? You stupid son of a b—-, you Uptown a–hole, what the f— do you think you’re doing? If you and your men are not out of here in the next minute, you and every g-ddamned cop in here is fired.”

- New Orleans Mayor DeLesseps “Chep” Morrison on the occasion of having his stag party raided by Superintendent of Police Provosty Dayries in the 1950’s. As quoted by Christine Wiltz. (Cited by Matthew Randazzo V, in his book “Mr. New Orleans,” p 221).

And when a client or former sex worker does get pinched for an unrelated crime and squeals about a brothel to ease their punishment … the game still plays out the same as ever. The Madams go to prison (or kill themselves), and at most only one or two of their former big-name johns are ever publicly embarrassed.

Justitia - maybe not so blind. (credit: Tony Caffrey)

By Mark Moseley, The Lens opinion writer |

Federal prosecutor Sal Perricone submitted his resignation to U.S. Attorney Jim Letten on Tuesday. It’s a shame because Perricone is one of the smartest guys in the region. Or at least that’s how he portrayed himself in the comment boards on nola.com. There, Perricone posed as the cyclops in the land of the blind. Everyone who disagreed with him was either sightless or stupid.

Apparently writing under several noms de plume, Perricone used the nola.com forums to rage against stupid lawyers, corrupt politicians and a dim media. Perricone always had all the “answers.” He was never flummoxed. Everyone else was either a loudmouth doofus or an apologist for corrupt liars (or both). For Perricone, ignorance wasn’t a starting point on the road to wisdom; it was merely the one-size-fits-all label for his opponents. Thus, the online Perricone was the anti-Socrates. Never in need of insight, Perricone mixed twenty-dollar words with cutting remarks to opine on the cases his office handled, and make his online opponents feel small.

The Times-Picayune reported the story first on March 13:

Landfill magnate Fred Heebe filed a civil defamation suit… against a frequent commenter on NOLA.com, alleging that the commenter — who uses the handle “Henry L. Mencken1951″ — is actually [assistant U.S. attorney Sal Perricone].
…
[Henry L. Mencken1951’s] comments were compared to legal filings made by federal prosecutors in their sweeping probe of the River Birch landfill, which is co-owned by Heebe and his father-in-law. [An FBI profiler enlisted by Heebe] found striking similarities in the language, the suit says.

Some within the vigorous online communities at American Zombie and Slabbed blogs smell a rat. They suspect someone in the U.S. Attorney’s office tipped Heebe to Perricone’s online identity, so Heebe could discredit the feds who are investigating him. While I’m confident that Heebe has inside connections, I’m much more inclined to agree with James Gill who, after reviewing Perricone’s online rants under usernames that included birth years and references to his employment, concludedthat the media should’ve uncloaked Perricone long before Heebe did. Clues were abundant. Not to mention Perricone’s repeated use of words like “dubiety,” which immediately set him apart from most nola.com commenters. And as someone who has nailed plagiarists without any fancy linguistic tools beyond google, I’m sure Heebe’s camp was smart enough to connect the dots on their own.

Who knows, maybe Heebe and Perricone even traded pseudonymous barbs in the forum.

Perricone’s identity is more obvious in hindsight. But it’s worth pointing out that some nola.com commenters were suspicious of Perricone’s alleged aliases (in this case “legacyusa”) well before the story broke.

Take this 2011 exchange among comments inspired by the T-P’s obituary of former U.S. Attorney John Volz. As the T-P noted, Volz “prosecuted such figures as crime boss Carlos Marcello, former Gov. Edwin Edwards, (and) former New Orleans District Attorney Harry Connick” in the 1980’s. Here’s an exchange between “legacyusa” and “brlawyer”, quoted in its entirety, for both context and flavor. See if you detect a subtle interplay between the arguing interlocutors. To me, it seems almost like a masked dance (among peers?) trying to feel out who the other one is, each tweaking the other in hopes of getting the other to betray more identifying information.

Commenter brlawyer gets things started with a dig at the deceased:

A man defined by his failures.

Legacyusa responds:

I guess the BR stands for Baton Rouge, which says enough about you and what defines you. Volz set the standard for prosecuting public corruption. The record is secondary. That standard still applies today to the men and women of that US Attorney’s Office. Perhaps Baton Rouge could take some lessons from those guys and gals downtown. BRlawyer, I hope you respond to this. Please.

Brlawyer complies (my emphasis):

Re-trying a sitting governor, after only a single juror voted to convict (and that one juror was, shall we say, a bit odd), and spending a huge amount of the public’s money in pursuit of a personal vendetta despite reason and logic — does not demonstrate the kind of “professionalism and ethics” any prosecutor should stand for. Perhaps you missed the DOJ book celebrating the 200th anniversary of the birth of the department — each state (or maybe it was each district … I can’t recall) had a section, and Mr. Volz was quoted as saying, regarding the acquittal of Governor Edwards, “Well, if we didn’t make him guilty, at least we made him sorry.” I seriously doubt that the Department of Justice mis-quoted their own man. If you can defend that kind of sentiment, then I only hope you are a former member of that office and no longer invested with the awesome powers we provide to prosecutors. I wish his family well, but we should not forget the past. Oh, and LegacyUSA, I’ll wait to hear your insightful comments about Mr. Volz’ statement — if that’s the standard for prosecuting corruption, then God help us all.

Legacyusa sinks his teeth in, but also ignores the bait brlawyer extended (marked in bold):

You have obviously been suduced (sic) by the Edwards mistique (sic), so edifying you would be a waste of effort. But I seen (sic) nothing intrisically (sic) wrong with what Volz was saying. Those of us with an IQ above the speed limit, excluding you BR, knew the (sic) your friend and idol Edwin Edwards was an inveterate crook and will be until he has no pulse. He was a crook in 1985 and his life style(sic) sent he and his son to prison in 2000. So where’s the mistatement (sic)? Where’s the mischaracterization? It resides in your feeble mind.

Determining online identities isn’t brain surgery. For example, in that same thread a commenter named irishjean wrote, “You obviously didn’t know [Volz].” Which is another way of irishjean saying, “I knew Volz.” After a quick review of irishjean’s comments, I’d bet irishjean knew or even worked with Perricone and Letten. Irishjean certainly sounds like Perricone, with the same cheerleading for Letten, focus on legal stories, and right-wing politics. This stuck out like a sore thumb and I wasn’t even looking for it. It’s a random example, but it shows that most commenters don’t strain to cover their identities on messageboards. It doesn’t require much sleuthing to narrow down the list of their possible identities.

So I don’t think the “who exposed Perricone’s online identity (to Heebe)” is a key question, as my friends at American Zombie and Slabbed do. But I could be wrong! I’m not a know-it-all on a mountaintop, shouting to my peers on other peaks, and insulting the unwashed hordes below. Doubt and recognition of my own ignorance are two of my closest friends. I do agree with my Slabbed and Zombie friends that we should look deeper, and I recommend visiting both those blogs to learn more.

As Fox 8 TV first reported, Perricone allegedly wrote some incendiary words online. One comment invited people with guns to visit Mayor Ray Nagin’s home.

In June of 2009, “campstblue” writes, “For all of you who have a penchant for firearms and how they work, Ray Nagin lives on Park Island.”

What’s the purpose of that, other than to incite harm? That’s a hideous and inexcusable statement, especially for a crime-fighting federal prosecutor. Lord knows I carry no water for Nagin, but clearly Perricone should publicly apologize to the former mayor.

The second comment, also reported by Fox 8, deeply interested me.

[Perricone] defends the state’s other senator, David Vitter, in a 2009 post: “Let’s see if we have this correct. Some ignorant mutants want to attack Vitter for paying for sex when he wasn’t in the Senate. Now this bimbo got paid for having sex. Giving the convulsions this city went through in celebrating the Canal St cathouse, I would guess this [expletive deleted] will be treated like a debutante, as the madam was by the local media. David, you are fighting a sick culture.” “P.S. men don’t pay for sex. They pay the lady to go away.”

By the way, Sal Perricone worked as a prosecutor on the 2002 Canal Street brothel case, and the day of indictments said this: “This case represents one of the vilest forms of exploitation there is… the exploitation of women.”

The unedited comment by campstblue can be found here. In my next post, I will explore Perricone’s defense of Vitter along with many other semi-related matters. But the 2002 Canal Street brothel case, which Perricone prosecuted, may serve as a revealing signpost for the inner-workings of the Federal investigation of River Birch, as well as the push-back by Team Heebe.

Many mock the brothel case as a waste of resources during the 9/11 era. But we’d do well to remember that the investigation, as Hugh Aynesworth reported in 2002, got started with a tip to the Federal Bureau of Investigation about a New Orleans brothel operating out of a house owned by the nephew of a deceased mob boss.

The woman who tipped off the FBI refused to give her name, but did provide the address of the brothel, several telephone numbers and the names of reputed prostitutes involved. She also said the property was owned by the Marcellos.

Carlos Marcello, considered by Mafia experts as one of the most powerful of the regional mob leaders in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, died several years ago, but law enforcement has been steadily watching other family members suspected of dealing in gambling, prostitution and other rackets.

It turned out that the property where the brothel was operating was owned by Vincent Marcello, nephew of Carlos.

The FBI interviewed Vincent Marcello and his attorneys, and were given assurances — and shown documents — that Mr. Marcello owned the property, but had evicted the renters because of neighbors’ complaints. The brothel had since moved a block or so away, into a stately old mansion on Canal Street. FBI agents, still not sure what they were onto but impressed with the high fees ($200 to $300 an hour) paid by the brothel’s clients, staked out the place.

So Marcello owned the house from which Jeanette Maier, the Canal Street Madam, allegedly operated, prior to her moving to Canal Street proper. If, as Aynesworth claims, the FBI was closely monitoring Marcello, is it plausible to suggest that the Feds might have suspected that a business relationship still existed between the Madam and her former landlord?

As Fox 8 reported, Perricone had previously decried prostitution as exploitative. But the madam couldn’t have exploited her sex workers without paying customers. In this case, her little black book included doctors, lawyers, judges, politicians, City Council members, news anchors, parish presidents … etc. But perhaps neither the Madam nor her well-known johns were the big fish that the FBI was angling for.

Perhaps the brothel case is a good porthole through which to view the deeper currents at play in the current River Birch saga. There are many differences, of course. For one, the River Birch case involves a slew of named politicians, officials and businessmen. However, just as the madam wasn’t perhaps the ultimate prize of the Canal St. investigation, neither is Heebe the ultimate target of the River Birch case.

Some in the Slabbed and Zombie community are speculating that, once again, potential land and landlord issues are where we should be looking to unravel this puzzle.

Seamus, the now world-famous family pet Mitt Romney strapped to the roof of his car for a 12-hour drive to Canada. (credit: www.dogsagainstromney.com) mons

By Mark Moseley, The Lens opinion writer |

1. Basketball analyst Digger Phelps appeared on CNBC’s Squawk Box show to talk about the men’s NCAA basketball tournament known as March Madness. At the end of the segment (video here) Phelps said that in two weeks, coinciding with the Final Four in New Orleans, he will be on hand to announce that John McDonogh High School is going to become a “culinary high school.” Presumably that means the current culinary arts program at McDonogh will be expanded school-wide, and as the school transitions from Recovery School District to charter board governance, McDonogh will find a niche as a specialty high school where students learn culinary arts and the business of restaurant management and ownership.

Incidentally, Phelps picked Michigan State to go to the Final Four and win it all. Whether the Spartans fulfill Phelps’ prophecy remains to be seen, but Phelps is right to laud the leadership of Michigan State head coach Tom Izzo. In my book (as yet unpublished), the still criminally underrated Izzo is the best coach in the country.

2. Columnist James Gill wrote another masterpiece in Wednesday’s Times-Picayune. Elegantly and perceptively, he wove Sen. Rick Santorum’s presidential aspirations with Bobby Jindal’s pandering to religious hardliners. Then he included a primer on current pro-science legislation in Baton Rouge and a history lesson about Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island. All in 700 words! C’mon, Gill, that’s just not fair.

There’s one political irony I can add to the mix. Conventional wisdom holds that Santorum’s recent primary success in the south will prolong the Republican primaries, and thereby weaken the eventual nominee (likely Gov. Mitt Romney). Obviously, a weak Republican challenger will improve President Barack Obama’s chances for re-election.

So let’s take the scenario a step farther. As James H., the writer of the Opinionated Catholic blog, has noted, Louisiana – a  largely Catholic and culturally conservative state in the Deep South – is almost custom-made for Santorum. For example, a recent poll by WWL- TV showed Santorum in the lead, and a North Shore Tea Party’s straw poll had national frontrunner Romney at 6 percent with his other three challengers all in the 30 percent range – and that was before Santorum’s victories in Alabama and Mississippi. If the Bayou State follows suit, and delivers a big win to the former Pennsylvania Senator on Saturday March 24, it will certainly extend this slow-motion car crash known as the GOP primary elections.

But here’s the rub. Louisiana is one of the most anti-Obama states in the union and if Louisiana votes for Santorum (which seems very likely) those who most want Obama out of office will help ensure his re-election. Sustaining Santorum’s chances weakens Romney which helps Obama. And four more years of Obama helps … well, it actually helps Sen. David Vitter and Governor Bobby Jindal.

Jindal, for one, appears bent on national office. So an Obama re-election will set the table nicely for him to run in 2016, rather than wait out the possible second term of an incumbent Republican president. Vitter, on the other hand, resuscitated his political career after the D.C. Madam scandal by opposing Obama (and illegal immigration). Now Vitter’s collecting awards for protecting animals, while his former media maven, John Brabender, is telling everyone the story of Seamus - the dog Romney “strapped to the roof of his car” (in a kennel) before driving the family 12 hours to Canada. (Don’t forget the canine-centric picture on Obama’s 2011 White House Christmas cards – sort of a preview of the insipid dog days of this political summer, which approach faster than we think.)

Why do I spend so much virtual ink handicapping the GOP primary rather than the local upcoming election for City Council at-large seat (also up for grabs on March 24)? Because nobody cares about the Council race! As the NolaDefender website reported, only “two dozen political devotees and media types” showed up for the candidate forum on Tuesday. And the only candidate who wants to rock the boat is Gary Landrieu who (took my advice?) and made opposition to traffic cameras a central part of his platform. Perhaps that’s why Landrieu’s cousin, Mayor Mitch Landrieu, won’t endorse him. The city’s already addicted to the revenues from these cameras, which necessitates installing more and more of them.

Landrieu has a secret plan for “huge economic development” –  but he won’t disclose it. I sure wish he would. The crazier the plan the better, in my view, because we need something in this “race” to grab voters’ attention. The issues aren’t doing it. Crime, jobs, schools … yawn, yawn, yawn.

Perhaps if one of the candidates mistreated a pet?