How do you lay the foundation for surrender in such a politically charged environment? Giving up sounds bad. There has to be a way to change giving up from a bad thing to a good thing. I’ve got it. Let’s just call it something else. You start using the soft language of surrender to soothe your constituents into believing that surrender is not giving up, surrender is victory.
Google AI explains that “soft language” is “a way of speaking that uses gentler words or phrases to describe something.” Google AI also explains that “soft language” is used to “avoid taking responsibility,” “to conceal reality,” and/or “to avoid dealing with the world directly.” Let’s take a look at some of that soft language.
- “The esteemed Mike Ginart took a different approach” of suggesting that we explore cutting a deal with the Port while we continue to fight the Port. This is from Josh Moran. The implication is: Don’t listen to the people who are fighting the Port … they are undignified, not like the esteemed Mike Ginart who wants to negotiate.
- “Chances are it’s coming. We hope we can stop it. But you know, this is a David versus Goliath battle. Ok. And what we have to do at this time is begin mitigating these issues.” Donald Bourgeois, Chief Administrative Officer. Mr. Bourgeois is apparently unaware of the historical fact that David actually beat Goliath. So if i’s a David versus Goliath battle, why would you bet on Goliath?
- Negotiating, rather than opposing, with the Port is required to protect the health, safety, and welfare from crumbling infrastructure. “If that means I have to be the bad guy and go meet with the port to make sure that we’re getting everything for the parish, then I’ll do it. We need to protect St. Bernard, and we need to do the right thing.” This is from Josh Moran. So negotiating, rather than fighting, is the right thing to do and the right way to protect St. Bernard.
- “This thing is coming to us no matter what.” Again, this is from Josh Moran. You see, we have no chance of winning our lawsuits and our attorneys are terrible, so surrendering is really the smart move.
- “This is a required bureaucratic function that is purely information, occurring regardless of who is seeking to develop.” Justin Walton, The St. Bernard Voice. The implication is that the Parish didn’t choose to meet with the Port, they were required to meet with the Port. Therefore, the Parish can’t be held responsible for doing what it was required to do. Where is this requirement? It doesn’t matter – it sounds like a reasonable statement.
- “It would be perfectly reasonable to have the Port of New Orleans pay for the $4 million pump station as it ensures the parish can handle the increased sewerage load the LIT project would bring should it develop.” Attributed to Patricia Cusimano and Josh Moran by Justin Walton of the St. Bernard Voice. Even though the Parish claims it wasn’t negotiating with the Port, Cusimano and Moran want you to know that even if the Parish did negotiate with the Port, that was the right thing to do under the circumstances.
- “[T]hen we are going to have the Port pay the $4,000,000 to accommodate them adding to our sewer system … why would you not get an outside source to pay for it.” Council member Cusimano. You see, the smart thing is to have the Port pay us money to tie in to the sewer system.
- “I do also know that there’s not a person that I’ve spoken to at the state or federal level that seems to think that this project is going anywhere else.” Council member McCloskey. In other words, Council member McCloskey wants you to believe that you don’t have a say in this process.
This is how the foundation is laid to make it easier for the council and president to roll over and cut a bad deal with the Port of New Orleans.
All of the council members and the parish president all claim to be fighting the port. But whenever someone (Fred Everhardt) suggests making a real move that would really set back the port’s efforts, literally all of the other council members and the parish president find some reason to be opposed to taking action against the Port.
Take for instance the most recent controversy about the Parish negotiating with the Port of New Orleans to receive $4,000,000 in exchange for allowing the Port to tie in to the Parish’s sewerage system. Why was this so controversial? Because it was obvious to nearly everyone that allowing the Port to tie into the Parish’s sewerage system advanced, rather than set back, the development of the LIT terminal. But instead of thanking Mr. Everhardt from helping avert this disaster, the council and president took aim at Mr. Everhardt as the bad guy. Does that make sense to you? If so, you must be a council member or the parish president.
Why was Mr. Everhardt the bad guy? Council Member Amanda Mones was quoted by the St. Bernard Voice as stating that she “just had a major issue with the way this whole thing was done. We do need open communication with one another so we can really understand what happened, and what we need to do in the future. If we’re going to fight this port and represent the people to the best we can, we can’t be fighting with one another like that.” What on earth is Mrs. Mones talking about? Let’s break that down one nonsensical thought at a time.
“I just had a major issue with the way this whole thing was done.” Oh, you mean the part where Mr. Everhardt exercises some government oversight and tries to figure out what was going on with these negotiations. Was it the part where Mr. Everhardt asks Mr. Lauga a simple question to find out where the $4,000,000 funding shortfall is going to be made up? Or the part where Mr. Lauga acknowledges that some mystery benefactor is going to put up the $4,000,000 in order to tie in to our sewer system? Or the part where Mr. Jarrell asks Mr. Lauga who the funding entity is? Or the part where Mr. Everhardt seeks public records from the Port of New Orleans to corroborate the statements from Mr. Lauga and Mr. Jarrell? Or is it the part where Mr. Everhardt went public with the information? It seems certain its this last one.
“We do need open communication with one another so we can really understand what happened, and what we need to do in the future.” Oh, then Mrs. Mones must have supported opening an investigation to figure out what we need to do in the future? Of course not. By “open communication” Mrs. Mones is just throwing out a sound bite after a long string of words long enough to avoid doing what she says she wants to do.
“If we’re going to fight this port and represent the people to the best we can, we can’t be fighting with one another like that.” Run with me for a second Mrs. Mones, if, just if, someone in the administration was secretly negotiating with the Port of New Orleans to allow a sewer tie in and water and sewer line relocation to move the LIT project forward, then maybe we should be fighting with administration to make sure this doesn’t happen. Call me crazy, but that seems like a good way to slow down the port.
Contrast that with the bad bearded man (Fred Everhardt). “When asked [by the St. Bernard Voice] in an interview whether he would change his approach to this situation as a result of the heavy criticism during the January 7 meeting, Everhardt explained that he … believed it was the most transparent way.” Was this even a serious recommendation in the form of a question? Was the St. Bernard Voice really suggesting that Mr. Everhardt refrain from making public information available to the public by posting it on Facebook? You betcha! It’s one thing to have a journalistic viewpoint, but its another to pretend that this was some objective fact gathering effort. You can see why a new news source was needed for St. Bernard.
So this is what surrender looks like:
The Parish gets caught helping move the LIT project forward by negotiating a sewer tie in and relocating the water lines along St. Bernard Highway and only one council member wanted to actually find out what happened? Let’s hear the panoply of excuses for not investigating:
- “I don’t see why this Council has to investigate the administration. … We know what happened at that meeting, so what are we investigating?” Council member Cusimano. How do we know such much? Well, we heard all about it from people who were not there and who were not involved.
- “[government employees] names are mentioned on social media because of some campaign promise to fight that we’ve going to fight against the Port of New Orleans, something that is ridiculous.” Council member Moran. That’s our guy!
- “[W]e should just ask some questions first before we use one of our extreme powers [of opening an investigation]…” Council member Randall. So Randall was a pre-investigation before commencing an investigation. Brilliant! Did Council member Randall ever follow up on his pre-investigation investigation? No, nothing publicly at least.
- “I just had a major issue with the way this whole thing was done.” Council member Mones
- My concern … would be why this information that was privy on social media which was before any of us was able to even review it… why wasn’t that turned over to our attorneys…” Council member Meyer. So, let me get this straight, because the documents were put on Facebook first, that is a reason NOT to investigate? That makes sense if you don’t think about it.
- “There’s an extraordinary amount of time that goes into a council investigation that requires more time from the plate of each of these council members and it is a very in depth process.” Council member McCloskey There it is, an investigation would just take up too much time.
What can you make out of all of this? That the council and president are laying the foundation for an early surrender.
Would President Trump ever talk like this? No, of course not because this is only how people who are use to giving up talk.
