LazlosBasement.com

It’s not the first time such an outstandingly bassackwards resolution has been proposed in a state senate meeting, and I strongly suspect it will not be the last. But there is a little extra sting to Representative John LaBruzzo’s most recent brainchild, which could be generously described as dumbfuckery gone south. LaBruzzo, who represents a Metairie district in the Louisiana state legislature, has officially proposed that the state spend its residents’ hard-earned tax dollars by “voluntarily” sterilizing women who don’t meet his financial standards - while simultaneously “encouraging” wealthy women to have more children - as a means to improve the state’s economy. Seriously.

Now, the asininity (it’s a word, I looked it up) of this proposal should be shockingly obvious to our fair readers, but I’ve got insomnia so just for shits and giggles I’m gonna go ahead and point it all out anyway. Let’s start with the fact that LaBruzzo touts this proposal as a way of “addressing the problem of intergenerational welfare,” which one can only assume means that he thinks “welfare” is the economic quandary at fault for low wages and joblessness in Louisiana (those pesky hurricanes and Wall Street aside). First, there’s no such thing as “welfare” any more, so one can only hope LaBruzzo is using the inadequate term to refer to the replacement program TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), which provides - read my lips here - TEMPORARY financial assistance to some families (children are a requirement, adults without children do not qualify ) whose income falls below the poverty level. In other words, the majority of people who benefit from the TANF system are children whose parents DO work (another requirement) but whose wages are too low to raise the family above poverty. And they can only receive benefits for a maximum of five (that’s 5, or V if you’re an ancient Roman) years total. They can thank Bill Clinton, who I firmly support as our best Republican president ever, for that time limit. So that pretty much shatters the myth of “intergenerational welfare,” because this country will be goddamned if more than one percent (that’s 1%) of the entire federal budget is spent on assistance to these families. Truth.

But why stop there? Last we heard it takes two to tango, so you might ask why LaBruzzo only wants to offer the $1000 bribe to sterilize women? Ah HAH! He has you right where he wants you now! LaBruzzo would be happy to cauterize a few low-class vas deference tubes. Why, he’ll even offer you broke blokes $500 for the pleasure. Apparently your tubes are only worth half as much as fallopian tubes. See? He’s not sexist at all. Why, women’s reproductive rights are twice as expensive as men’s!

Of course, LaBruzzo’s ingenious eugenic plan would only be fair if he offered some form of incentive to upper class, college-educated (read White) families to have more children. After all, parity is an American value, right? So how ’bout some more tax breaks? Because if we’ve learned one thing from the gigantic clusterfuck that has become Wall Street, it’s that the winners of the Birthright Of Family Wealth lottery need more tax breaks. Knock a few more dollars off their itemized lists, that’s sure to get the bedroom rockin.’

In short, Rep. John LaBruzzo thinks he can magically succeed at what smarter and better men (and women) cannot; he can cure the financial disparities of an entire society’s classism by applying the simple tenets of sexism and racism to the whole lot of ‘em. By the way, LaBruzzo is a White upper-class post-grad with a kid, which clarifies where he would personally fall in the mix, though of course that’s beside his point, which I’m thinking resides on the top of his head.

On the other hand, this is from the same district that sent KKK leader David Duke to the legislation in 1989. So maybe LaBruzzo’s making progress after all.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Who knows what’s in that stew? Beagle knows…er, nose

Nothing starts out a day like browsing through the morning news stories and accidentally running across the phrase “assorted animal penises served at the Guolizhuang restaurant in Beijing.”

Perhaps I should rewind. Either the New York Times has a new advertising slogan, or someone somewhere has their manties all in a bunch over something related to the Olympics. Fortunately for all of us, this seems to be a case of the latter. Turns out the unexpected turn of phrase is part of a larger story in yesterday’s Op-Ed section, noting that the Beijing Catering Trade Association has ordered all officially sanctioned Olympic restaurants to remove dog meat from their menus. The story states that the order, which might technically have been unnecessary considering that dog meat is a rare (ehm) item on any Beijing menu, is part of a larger campaign to avoid offending Westerners (nevermind those pesky Tibetans).

That eating dog is seen as an issue says more about Western preoccupations than Chinese habits. Since time immemorial, Westerners have had a morbid fascination with the weird fringes of the Chinese diet. Marco Polo noted with distaste that the Chinese liked eating snake and dog; modern Western journalists just love to get their teeth into a juicy story about some revolting delicacy like the assorted animal penises served at the Guolizhuang restaurant in Beijing. And for gung-ho foreign tourists, a skewerful of deep-fried scorpions in the night market in central Beijing has become a rite of passage…

So what has induced the Chinese government to ban the serving of dog meat during the Olympics? One might observe that when it comes to important issues like human rights in Tibet, Chinese leaders don’t seem to care what the rest of the world thinks, yet when it comes to dietary niceties, they kowtow to the most irrational foreign prejudice.

It’s partly because the “issue” of dog-eating seems to be a magnet for animal rights activists. Many Westerners are genuinely shocked and offended at the idea of eating an animal they consider to be “man’s best friend….”

So to recap; PETA - 2, Tibetans - 0. The Greatest American Dog people will be thrilled. Now if we could just stop people from buying those silly dog sweaters, I think we might have something.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Fact or Fiction?

Welcome to Round Two of our very own local clash of the titan greedmongering hosebags, also known as Adams and Reese, L.L.P., and the illustrious political leaders of New Orleans. If you missed Round One, it was a doozy, so be sure to check it out.

Yes, here in the Crescent City, we like our lawyers corrupt and our leaders corrupt-er. Hell with it, we like ‘em corrupt-est. But we save the best of the worst for times like these, when the haves host a good old fashioned showdown with the the have-even-mores. In fact these “haves” have so much they just can’t stop themselves, they have to take your house, your health insurance, and a few hundred million dollars in “refinancing” or whatever they call it, just to show they can.

But the haves (Adams and Reese, L.L.P.) made a minor miscalculation this time; they kicked Mr. James G. Perdigao out of their good ole’ boys club, and Mr. James G. Perdigao is having none of it. Hence his lawsuit accusing the firm of - try to keep up with us now - bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud, obstruction of justice, obstruction of criminal investigations, tampering with a witness/victim/informant, retaliation against a witness/victim/informant, extortion, and of course, plain old racketeering. Unfortunately for the haves, Mr. Perdigao is no stranger to being a witness for the government, as his suit explains:

Plaintiff [Perdigao] had…developed various relationships with the U.S. Attorney’s office based on his previous testimony on behalf of the government in an earlier, unrelated video poker case. At the request of the U.S. Attorney’s office, plaintiff had provided general background information regarding the licensing and regulation of riverboat gaming in connection with their investigation. Plaintiff also agreed to provide testimony to the grand jury and if an indictment was returned, at trial if requested by the government. Plaintiff advised [firm partner Robert] Vosbein that he had agreed to assist the government through the provision of information and testimony regarding the regulation of riverboat gaming activities. Vosbein became furious at the plaintiff, advising him that he worked for Vosbein, not the federal government and that he and the firm would decide if, when, and how plaintiff could testify.

You see, Vosbein is a part owner of the Treasure Chest Casino, along with Robert Guidry - one of the firm’s most prominent clients. Vosbein’s (and the firm’s) financial interests are not served by aiding the prosecution of the gaming industry’s misdeeds. Unfortunately for Vosbein, when the house of cards that is Adams and Reese, L.L.P., began to fall, the firm decided to kick Perdigao out of their club. Therein lies what is likely to be their greatest miscalculation of all; because Perdigao, who realized he was about to become public enemy #1, knew who to go to for advice. And surprise, surprise, Perdigao offered to turn state’s evidence and filed his own suit against the still-haves. And here we are.

Now Adams and Reese, L.L.P., has decided to return fire via a surprisingly brief blurb released to the local media.

Statement by Adams and Reese Managing Partner Charles P. Adams, Jr. Regarding Perdigao Lawsuit
(New Orleans, LA) – The lawsuit filed Tuesday represents the latest episode in Perdigao’s continuing fantasy of blaming the government and our firm for his wrongdoing and lashing out at those who are holding him accountable for his actions. Adams and Reese denies Perdigao’s allegations of wrongdoing. We look forward to his upcoming criminal trial and we will continue to cooperate with the U.S. Attorney and the FBI to ensure that justice is done.

That’s it. They’re staying as cool as the other side of the pillow. They say the guy’s a criminal, the only snake in a nest full of lambs, end of story. Mind you, they say this not as part of any legal proceeding. The firm has yet to file an answer for the suit one imagines they must have seen coming from light years away (er, wasn’t that suit filed on Wednesday, boys?). But then if you were them, wouldn’t you rather try this case in the media than in the courtroom? Yet interestingly, this article about the case from the New Orleans Times-Picayune was removed from the site’s main page in a mere matter of hours. Curious…

Bookmark It

Hide Sites