Here in South Louisiana, we are used to seeing rain. Lots of rain, in a very short period of time. It may not happen every week or even every month, but I'm sure you can count on a heavy down pour at least once every quarter.

Since we do get these heavy down pours on a regular basis, you would think we would learn how to drive our cars and trucks in it, but that doesn't seem to be the case for some drivers.

With streets flooded, visibility down to twenty feet, why do some drivers still insist on driving the posted speed limit or, even worse, faster?

The waters in the street will mean their brakes will get wet, so it will be even harder to stop quickly, if needed. And where is the consideration for home and business owners?

The faster one drives down a flooded street, the higher the wave that is created, which could then mean the difference between a building that stays dry and one that gets flooded.

Although the parts of central Thibodaux I was driving through during the recent storms on Monday had many raised buildings, there were some that were not raised and I had to feel some for the owners and residents of those buildings as I watched oncoming traffic drive through the flooded streets as if there was no water there.

Surely, we are more considerate of our neighbors than this poor example shows. Perhaps a few people just need a little helpful reminder.

I also wonder, should Lafourche join the ranks of Jefferson Parish and impose a $500 fine on drivers caught creating excessive wakes on flooded streets?

The Lafourche Parish Council is responsible for drainage within the unincorporated areas of the parish. Because of the vast number of homes and the distances between some of them, it is nearly impossible for the parish to place covered culverts in front of everyone's home for drainage purposes. Therefore, many homes just have an open ditch in front for drainage.

The primary maintenance of these ditches, cutting the grass and keeping the ditch free of obstructions, is the responsibility of the individual homeowner. Since not everyone wants to be bothered with the maintenance of the ditch, the parish does allow homeowners to pay for the installation of a covered culvert in front of their house.

The homeowner buys the material, a list of which is supplied by the parish, and then pays for parish workers to install the culverts. In effect, the parish becomes a contractor, hired by the homeowner, to install the culvert. What happens if the culvert is not installed correctly and hinders the proper flow of drainage? Who is responsible for the cost of repair?

If the water does not drain properly it can collect in the catch basins that are installed along with the culverts. When you have a period of light to no rain, there is never enough water to force water through the culverts, which allows the water to sit and become stagnant. Much worse, the water becomes a breeding ground for mosquitoes. With the ever growing threat of West Nile virus, what started as a minor drainage issue becomes a major health issue. Again, who is responsible?

• This week, FEMA obligated more than $20 Million in Public Assistance funds to the State of Louisiana.1
• Over $8.9 Million in funding was obligated to the New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board for costs associated with waste removal and the immediate repair and replacement of necessary equipment.
• More than $3.1 Million in funding was obligated to the City of Slidell for the debris removal and repair of the city's storm drainage system.
• Over $2 Million in funding was obligated to the Louisiana State Facility Planning and Control for repair of damages to Jackson Barracks Building 303 and for the mold remediation of buildings at the University of New Orleans.
• More than $2 Million in funding was obligated to the City of New Orleans for protective measures to public buildings including building stabilization, roof repairs and reinforcement, ventilation, and air conditioning.

“Parish government has struggled for over twenty years to make the transition to a council form of government. The only way we will be able to make that transition is if we get new leadership in office.

“My intent, when I am elected, is to push this Council to recognize what it needs to do to move forward instead of hanging on to the failed policies of the past. For too long this parish has been divided between north, central, and south. Until this mindset is changed, Lafourche parish will not be able to move forward and provide the standards of living that its citizens expect.”

Since moving to Thibodaux following the loss of his home in Chalmette due to Hurricane Katrina, Westley has immediately gotten involved in the community. He joined the Kiwanis Club of Thibodaux, who he represented at the Civic Leaders Forum last year, and the Bayou Community Band.

“Since moving to Lafourche Parish I’ve talked to many lifelong residents who have given me a history of Lafourche Parish and its politics. My separation from the politics of old allows me to look at problems with a fresh set of eyes and come up with new solutions.

“I’ve been involved in leadership positions with many different civic and religious organizations. I know what is needed to bring together a consensus to move ideas past the talking stage.”

Westley is married to the former Erica Gilfour of Thibodaux. They have three children: Mandie, Bernard, and Amalie.

Westley is the founder of da-parish.com, a voice and data consultancy, and DEVACAPS.com, a data security service.

Sen. Landrieu said:

“Our delegation has worked very hard and in good faith to put forward critical and vital hurricane protection and navigation projects in the WRDA bill. Louisiana currently has 17.5 percent of the projects in the bill and a veto of this important legislation would be a blow to our recovery and long-term hurricane protection efforts. I would strongly urge the President to reconsider this position.

Embezzlement Alleged at Hildebrand Tewes - Key Boasso Advisor & National Abortion Advocate

The email states that a consulting firm being utilized by Gubernatorial candidate Sen. Walter Boasso, Hildebrand Tewes, is caught up in the middle of a $100,000 embezzlement scandal. The embezzlement scandal is nothing more than an employee trying to steal money from the firm. Happens all the time, unfortunately.

A quick Google search shows embezzlement charges happening at Duke University, University of Michigan, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Independence Seaport Museum, Detroit Public Radio, Red Cross, a lawn maintenance company, and an insurance agency. Heck, I know of a small company in Arabi that caught an employee stealing funds and a lawyer in New Orleans that caught his secretary stealing. It is a reflection of the crook, not the firm, or should we all avoid the Red Cross now?

This is a desperate attempt by the state GOP to insinuate that Sen. Boasso is involved in any manner with the embezzlement.

The email sent by Quinn is also quick to point out that Hildebrand Tewes is also working for presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, worked for former Vice-President Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, and Emily's List, an abortion rights advocacy group.

Sen. Boasso is a Democrat and will utilize democrat campaign advisors. It should be no surprise that they may also be working for, or have worked for, a democratic presidential candidate.

It is also no surprise that this consulting firm has worked for an abortion rights advocacy group. Abortion is a plank for the national Democrat party and doesn't necessarily play well here in Louisiana. Most Louisianans, I believe, are against abortion, having twice passed a state-wide anti-abortion law (the first one was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge). However, abortion is not the litmus test that Quinn and company want to portray it as.

During the 1992 presidential campaign, Archbishop Phillip Hannan, speaking on his own and not for the Roman Catholic Church, declared that it would be a sin for anyone to vote for Bill Clinton. Turns out Clinton was more popular in that election than Bishop Hannan.

This email sent out by Quinn was simply an attempt to fling mud at Sen. Boasso hoping some of it would stick. What Quinn didn't realize was that the barrel wasn't empty but full of clean water and it just rolled off of Sen. Boasso like water on a duck's back.

The only question that remains is who was calling the shots, Quinn or Rep. Bobby Jindal?

I always have a drive in the car, usually one of those big 32 oz. cups (I like my drinks ice cold and you just can't do that with a can). Of course, when I go through a drive-thru, I've got a nearly empty cup in the cup holder that should be empty to hold the new drink I am about to receive and need to dispose of it.

There in lies the problem. With no trash receptacle, what am I to do with this old cup that is not quite completely empty? Try to ask the person at the window to dispose of it and they almost always claim they are not allowed to dispose of it. Can anyone answer why? What's the big deal with taking my nearly empty cup and disposing of it?

Unfortunately, due to my very short fuse on such simple matters, I tend to let my saggy pants mentality show and I simply toss the cup into the parking lot. I look at it is my own way of informing the restaurant that they need to invest in a trash bin or two for the outside.

For the record, Wendy's is the worst offender while McDonald's usually has a bin, even if it looks like it hasn't been emptied for two days.

Lafourche Parish Councilman Daniel Lorraine has proven once again that he is not a student of Abraham Lincoln.

At the Lafourche Parish Council meeting on July 10 where a ordinance to ban the public display of under garments was voted on, Mr. Lorraine could not explain why he voted against an amendment that would have exempted bra straps, but voted for the ordinance itself.

To quote Mr. Lorraine, “I probably just slipped up on it.”

Is this what the residents of Lafourche Parish are to expect from such a seasoned politician? It makes one wonder how many other votes he “just slipped up on?”

Mr. Lorraine is so well entrenched within his district, that I doubt anyone will run against him in the upcoming election. Should someone decide to step up to plate, let me recommend the following for placement on a billboard or newspaper ad.

A picture of Mr. Lorraine at a council meeting casting his vote. Let both the yea and nay lights be lit. Put a little bubble quote above his head with his quote inside, “I probably just slipped up on it.”

If anyone can send me a picture of Mr. Lorraine at a council meeting, I will post a mock-up of it.

I've known Sen. Boasso and his family for many years and actually worked for him for a little over a year. As a member of his Senate Advisory Committee, I got to learn some of the battles that Walter faced during his first term legislative session.

When you compare Walter Boasso to front runner Bobby Jindal the scale is clearly in Boasso's favor.

Bobby, while a great guy and a powerful speaker (I got to watch him and David Vitter speak at the same conference - Jindal could use Vitter to wipe the floor up), I think he has had too much of a fairy tale ride. He is a career bureaucrat and politician who is just swinging from rung to rung. As an associate of mine likes to point out, Jindal has never held a job for longer than two years (I guess being a Congressman sets a new record for him).

I haven't gone back to look it up, but this same associate claims that Jindal has always been great on spouting policy but has never managed to actually implement it.

That said, I've known Walter and his family for too long and I trust him.

Reality being what it is, I realize he is going to cast votes for measures that I am against, but I also think he will never sell out the welfare of the state and its citizens for a backroom deal or to make himself look great.

As a CEO of a mid-sized corporation that he built himself, he has a certain ego that he knows what it takes to get the job done because he's done it. Jindal can only say that he has what it takes to raise a lot of money, get appointed to cushy jobs, and elected to even cushier jobs.

Jindal is a party hack and, as a Republican party hack, he should stay in Congress where we could do more good than being Governor of Louisiana.

Lafourche Parish councilman Lindel Toups has introduced an ordinance that would make it illegal to wear low handing pants that expose underwear. Modeled after a similar law that was passed recently in Dalcambre, La.

As a coincidental aside, on my home from work on Monday, when this proposed ordinance was first reported, I saw four kids riding bikes down St. Mary Street. Two kids on each bike, the ones sitting on the handle bars holding their pants up, with their underwear exposed, the two peddling relying on the bike seat to hold their pants up so they could place two hands on the handle bars. Of course, their underwear was showing also.

This proposed ordinance is a tricky one for me.

As a conservative who believes in less government intrusion into our lives, it is hard to support an ordinance that invokes says what we can and cannot wear. However, as a conservative who finds this mode of dress profane, I can find reason to support it.

The basic problem can be boiled to a simple question: Does this style of dress meet the decency standards of the community? That answer will change as you walk up and down the bayou.

Personally, it does not reflect the standards of decency for me and my family and I would hope I could prevent my children from being exposed to that when we venture from our home.

Should this ordinance pass, which deep down inside of me, I kind of hope it does, I think it will amount to nothing more than feel-good legislation. It's not going to amount to a whole lot.

The only way to curb dress like is for local business establishments to enforce dress codes on their customers and employees.

Remember when you used to see signs on the door that read “No shirt, no shoes, no service”? Let's bring that back and add a line that reads, “If we can see your underwear, we will gladly sell you a belt that includes full training on the proper use and wear before you leave.”

Employers should make sure their employees are properly dressed. Some do and some don't.

I'm already a big fan of shopping with local businesses, so if they employ these practices, it makes it even easier for me to shop with them and avoid the big nationals. If enough local businesses do this, you will see a change in dress.

Their will be some hoopla at the beginning, “You're infringing on my free speech.”

No, we are not. There are limits to free speech and this is one of them.

One other aside, the Daily Comet, in their editorial against the ordinance called the debate over the ordinance a waste of time.

“We would like to see Toups and his colleagues spend their real time on real problems and leave matters of personal taste to private individuals.”

No, it is not a waste of time. As our elected officials, they represent the community of Lafourche Parish in its entirety. Through their debates, we can learn what others in our community think of the decency standards the community has as a whole.

Debating this issue in public can also help form a final decision in the minds to the retired citizens we are trying to entice to move to the area.

Besides, although no one wants to see it last all night, councilmen are not paid by the hour, so whether they can conclude a meeting in sixty minutes or six hours, it doesn't really matter, just as long as they discuss everything that is on the agenda.

I have always believed you can't allow your income to determine your outcome. My proposed need-based scholarship program provides low-income students with an equal chance to pursue higher education right here in Louisiana.

The rising cost of college and university tuition places a financial strain on all our students and shuts the door on many Louisianans who simply cannot afford the price tag. Too many students are forced to take time off from their studies to work while others incur large personal debts to cover the cost of tuition and other expenses. In fact, Louisiana is ranked 12th in the nation in student debt, with our graduates owing on average more than $18,000. Such costs leave countless students behind.

A student's income level should no longer control their ability to pursue an education in our state.

Our budget surplus and sound fiscal outlook create tremendous opportunities for Louisiana. As part of my targeted investments in education, I am asking legislators to open the door of opportunity for students by establishing Louisiana's first substantial need-based scholarships program.

This $15 million initiative offers up to $2,000 annually for qualified full-time students. Part-time students may be eligible for $1,000 each year. First-time students who meet federal Pell Grant requirements and are enrolled at any Louisiana public community and technical college or university will be eligible, along with adult students yearning to get back to college.

Because most grants, scholarships, and financial aid only cover tuition costs, students are left facing the rising cost of books and fees needed for their studies. This program fills the gap.

Early estimates reveal this program may help 25 percent of Louisiana's incoming freshmen, but this program intends to improve higher ed access for all our people. These grants will help older students who are looking to arm themselves with a particular degree or vocational training before returning to the workforce.

We see the results of other Louisiana programs, like the TOPS scholarship program, that were recently created to help our students cover tuition costs. Louisiana has several successful merit-based programs helping our students, but we need a greater investment in need-based aid. Currently, only 1.3 percent of the aid offered in Louisiana is need-based while the national average is 74 percent. Today, we are presented with an opportunity to further expand access to education by easing the financial strain on students who need it most. It's time for Louisiana to stop lagging behind and make a critical investment to expand access to higher education across our state.

His reasoning is that voters wield the power to vote anyone out of office. As he states, “We should be insulted whenever we are told we can’t be trusted to choose our own leaders, no matter how many years they have held office.

“We should be insulted when faced with the assumption that we will vote for whoever is in office no matter how undeserving that person is.”

He is right, we should be insulted. But, not everyone.

As Gorman stated in the beginning of his article, “We live in an age of unrivaled sloth.

“Any potential inconvenience is an occasion for a new gadget, device, pill, cream or law.”

When voters are too lazy to learn what their incumbent elected officials have done their term in office, it does become a problem. How many voters tend to vote just for the name they know simply because they haven't studied the ballot? Should we just be happy they showed up to vote?

Election after election we hear and read stories about how less than 50% of registered voters even bothered to vote. Look at the election of May 8. The highest voter turnout was 58.7% for the Mayor in the Town of Lecompte. The lowest was 0.9% for a Fire District proposal in S. Bossier. The City of Thibodaux only managed 24.2% for a City Councilman election. The average for all elections held that day was a dismal 6.7%.

I study the candidates and proposals that are up for a vote before I step into the voting booth. If it takes term limits to make up for the people who don't vote, or even worse, vote without studying than so be it.

But, let's not let all the blame fall on the voters. What about these politicians?

Danial Lorraine has been on the parish council for 24 years. Why? If he is so great as a councilman, why has he never bothered to run for parish president so that the entire parish could be under his wonderful leadership?

He can't be on the council for the money. I'm not sure what Lafourche councilmen get paid, but I know in other parishes it is as low as $7,000 a year.

If you assume that a council meeting last three hours, over roughly 24 meetings a year, yes, it is a nice chunk of change, working out to $97 per hour. Add just two hours per meeting for preparation, reading the agenda, proposals, and it drops to $58 per hour. Now, add one hour per week dealing with problems from constituents. On an hourly basis, the pay is down to $40.

So, on top of a full-time job, a councilman has to spend an average of three hours per week on official business. This does not take into account any committee meetings and being very conservative on the time spent dealing with constituents. And someone is going to tell me that all of this time and aggravation is worth $7,000 a year?

I don't believe it one bit.

Don't use this as an argument that councilmen should get paid more, actually, I think maybe they should get paid a little less. If we can't have term limits then, perhaps, a little less green might entice them to step aside and let others spend a bit of time in trying to guide the parish towards the future.

Councilman Michael Matherne, District 3, has proposed term limits for council members and the parish president. He wants to limit them to four consecutive terms of four years. After which they must sit out one term before they can run again.

In a rare show of unity, Councilman Daniel Lorraine, District 9, and Parish President Charlotte Randolph both disagree on term limits. Lorraine has been on the council for 24 years.

In an interview with the Daily Comet, Matherne said that Lafourche Parish residents approved term limits for state legislators by an overwhelming 76% and he believes residents would do the same for local offices.

I applaud Matherne's proposal and I hope it is presented to voters on the October ballot. My only concern is that it is still too lax. Sixteen years is a long time to serve on a parish council. Even better would be to reduce it to two consecutive terms.

If someone feels that they are doing such a wonderful job as a councilmen after eight years, why not run for parish president (although I fully support term limits for the parish president, it is not needed as badly since no one has been able to get themselves reelected to a second term as parish president).

Being totally unscientific, and too low a number to draw any real conclusion, a poll on the Daily Comet's website has 16 votes for a three-term limit, 3 for the proposed 4 term limit, and 3 for no term limit.

The proposed change that goes way overboard would give parish councilmen the ability to talk directly to parish employees and contractors. This change would seriously threaten the separation of legislation and executive powers between the council and president and harking back to the days of the old police jury system.

It is no surprise that Lorraine is a supporter of this proposal. Such it make it to the voters, I hope that it is soundly defeated.

The change that no one is talking about is changing the make up of the parish council.

The number one issue with the parish council is that there is not one legislative member who has to answer to the entire parish. This means that each councilman only needs to worry about the issues that matter to their district and not worry one bit about how it affects the rest of the parish.

In my article, “Change the Lafourche Parish Home Rule Charter? You Bet!”, I have gone into greater detail on what I think the make up of the parish council should be. Until Lafourche Parish has councilmen who must truly represent the parish and not just their district, you will always have the animosity that exists in Raceland today.

Marian Servants of the Word is having a Chicken Dinner on May 20~11:00 A.M. til 1:00 P.M For more information call 447-6564~ $6.00 pre dinner. Prepared by Eddie Duet

I found this quote to be quite interesting:

Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct. And can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.

So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation....

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

The second paragraph may look familiar to readers of American history as it is one of the most quoted pieces of George Washington's Farewell Address. It has probably been used as one of the arguments for Isolationism.

What many who read this fail to realize is the world is a much smaller place than it was 200 years ago when this was written. Back then it would take six to eight weeks to travel from Boston to London, making it much easier to ignore the events that were shaping Europe. Before the Concorde was grounded, it was possible to cross the ocean in only four hours, and, of course, telecommunications to anywhere in the world today is instantaneous.

Because of this ability for people of any nation to communicate with any other nation and to share their writings, music, movies, or other elements of culture, it does make the world more susceptible to dangers.

Just as a child becomes more susceptible to illnesses when she first enters a daycare or school, so does the world as it gets smaller with each passing day.

Whether for religious grounds, founded or unfounded, some folks are resistant to change. They blame all perceived negativity on the interaction of different cultures and will violently resist that interaction and change.

Never the less, America must continue its longstanding tradition of intermixing cultures, but in the process of doing so, must learn to be ever vigilant for those most resistant to change and American, and protect our people as well as those who are threatened by the resisters of change.