Mayor Hecht

It's an appointed position, apparently

Landry's office said Wednesday that the details and title of the role were still being worked out and they expect to make a formal announcement on June 5 at a press conference in New Orleans when the governor will detail the state's Super Bowl efforts.

But Landry spokesperson Kate Kelly said Wednesday that Hecht will primarily be concerned with coordinating the disparate state and city organizations to ensure that a "punch list" of tasks like road and sidewalk repairs, lighting upgrades, and homeless mitigation efforts are addressed.

The Governor just hands over responsibility for municipal services and "homeless mitigation" (?) to the business lobby sometimes. You know, in the case of emergencies. Like when the Superbowl is happening.  

Some of these are so easy, it's stupid

All one has to do is refer to any point in the past when Mayor Cantrell's administration acted to expand the intrusive police surveillance apparatus deployed against New Orleans residents during her term in office.

At the request of Mayor LaToya Cantrell, the New Orleans City Council introduced an ordinance on Thursday to severely roll back local restrictions on law enforcement surveillance that were put in place only 14 months ago.

The proposed ordinance, if passed, would largely reverse the council’s blanket bans on the use facial recognition and characteristic tracking software, which is similar to facial recognition but for identifying race, gender, outfits, vehicles, walking gait and other attributes. One provision also appears to walk back the city’s ban on predictive policing and cell-site simulators — which intercept and spy on cell phone calls — to locate people suspected of certain serious crimes. 

That provision could, for the first time, give the city explicit permission to use a whole host of surveillance technology in certain circumstances, including voice recognition, x-ray vans, “through the wall radar,” social media monitoring software, “tools used to gain unauthorized access to a computer,” and more.

And then follow that up with her reaction to having those kinds of tools turned back on her.  

New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell filed for a temporary protective order Friday against a woman she says has stalked her for two years by taking photos and videos of her, according to Orleans Parish Civil District Court records. 

Cantrell accuses the woman, Anne Breaud, of "aggressively" taking photos and videos of her on multiple occasions, including on April 7 as she dined on a restaurant balcony.

Breaud's actions over the last two years, she wrote, "have placed me and my family in greater risk of being harmed, jeopardizing my safety especially at places I frequent."

Breaud declined to comment Friday night, and the mayor's office could not be immediately reached.

Okay maybe it's not that easy.  It is stupid but some things need clarification. The photographs she's referring to in the second story connect to a tabloid saga regarding the mayor's personal life that I don't have any interest in discussing.  The local TV stations have enjoyed it very much because it is salacious in nature which gets a lot of attention while also having zero relevant news or political content which means they don't have to think too hard about anything while presenting it. 

If the reporters did want to talk about this with any sort of seriousness, these stories would focus less on the sensationalist aspects and more on the implications of who gets to point cameras at who and to what purpose. Because as it stands currently, the cops and the mayors have so many cameras poking into our daily lives that there's scarcely a step one takes without feeling like some sort of suspect. And yet the moment we might ask the slightest question about the work our public officials are doing, or the moment we point a camera at the police, well now there's the line that can't be crossed.

Not to put too fine a point on it but...

 They're messing with you. 

GOP donors Lane Grigsby and Boysie Bollinger aren't concerned about the restrictions placed on the constitutional convention in the enabling legislation passed by the House.

They don't think they're enforceable, per @LaPoliticsNow. #lalege #lagov pic.twitter.com/yUoG9J87nC

— Julie O'Donoghue (@JSODonoghue) May 10, 2024

Again, they are just messing with you

They just passed new laws that say insurance companies don't actually have to, you know, provide insurance. 

Gov. Jeff Landry on Tuesday signed a series of bills that make it easier for insurance companies to drop policyholders, raise rates and have more time to pay claims after a storm, a controversial plan that aims to attract more companies to the state.

Hilariously, they say this is supposed to make it easier for you to buy insurance. It won't.  But more importantly, they don't actually believe that anyway.  What they do believe in is holding a big public signing ceremony for this farcical legislation just to rub it in everyone's face. In addition to ripping you off and putting your home in danger, they are also messing with you. Seems bad.

Seems bad

Not really sure why anyone is wasting their time and energy under the delusion that the reactionaries in the legislature can be stopped or even reasoned with.  At some point you have to recognize that there's no reason to play in these sandboxes with them. 

State Rep. Jerome “Zee” Zeringue, R-Houma, flashed a thumbs-down Wednesday while away from the voting machine on his desk, indicating to the House speaker he was voting no on a controversial bill restricting union activities among government workers. The speaker acknowledged his vote, and his name lit up in red on the tally board. 

Moments later, it flashed to green. The bill passed 53-39, barely clearing the 53-vote threshold to pass the House. 

House Bill 571 by Rep. Raymond Crews, R-Bossier City, prohibits public sector union members, except for police and firefighter unions, from discussing or organizing union activities while working or on paid leave. It also nullifies any employment contracts that provide compensation, including paid leave, for the performance of such activities. 

Crews’ bill is opposed by several labor organizations, who have raised concerns that the bill violates the First Amendment. The bill would allow citizens to sue and be awarded costs for catching violations of the prohibition. The attorney general or a district attorney could also bring enforcement action. 

“Taking away the voices of thousands — tens of thousands — of workers, their rights to assemble and their freedom of speech is very alarming,” Matt Wood, a lobbyist for the Louisiana AFL-CIO said in an interview with the Illuminator. 

Zeringue was not the only member to have their vote changed. 

Rep. Jack McFarland, R-Jonesboro, had stepped outside the chamber at the time of the vote. Although didn’t give any other member permission to vote for him on Crews’ bill, he was recorded as a “yes” on the proposal. The final tally should have shown him as absent.

All of these outcomes are pre-determined. Why even bother with it? Why waste your time, your breath, your sanity? Nobody is listening. All they are doing is messing with you. 

During the convention, Landry and Beaullieu have also said no laws would be immediately changed. Instead, the governor has proposed only moving language out of the constitution and into what he has called a “super statute” in regular state law. 

“We are not rewriting the constitution. This is a refresh of the constitution,” Beaullieu said.

While relegating language from the constitution into statute won’t immediately change any law, it will make it easier for legislators to eliminate or change those provisions at a later date.

Constitutional language can only be removed with approval of two-thirds of the Louisiana House and Senate and approval from voters on a statewide ballot. A “super statute” would only need approval from lawmakers to eliminate or alter. 

In spite of Beaullieu’s assurances on protecting certain areas from constitutional cuts, legal experts have questioned whether that is possible. 

Several lawmakers and attorneys believe state law doesn’t allow for a “limited” constitutional convention, where certain items are declared off limits. If a convention is held, delegates could open up any portion of the constitution for alterations if they wanted, they said.

Bullying, "gaslighting" whatever you want to call it, they're gonna do whatever they want.  This is a fight that was lost a long time ago. Seems bad. What else is there to say?