We
haven’t spent much time in Louisiana.

Basically,
we’ve just driven through it on Interstate 10. We’re here to spend more
time in it.



Scored
a nice campsite.



We’re
practically the only ones here.
We
haven’t spent much time in Louisiana.

Basically,
we’ve just driven through it on Interstate 10. We’re here to spend more
time in it.



Scored
a nice campsite.



We’re
practically the only ones here.
We
don’t have anything to getaway from, but here we go nonetheless.
Goose
Island State Park.

Didn’t
remember to take the picture until late.
Bonus.
A little green treefrog camped out in the electrical
box.





Queens.

Smaller
cousins of Monarchs.

Monarchs
pass through during migration. Queens are more stationary
tropicals. We’re at the north end of their range, so we get to see them
year-round.
This
one is different.

It’s
a White Peacock.

Like
the Queen, it’s a tropical butterfly and non-migratory. The Queens will
all gather together to feed. The White Peacock is more territorial, and
is more likely to be seen solo.
We,
the country, one way or another, just spent 12 billion dollars on an
election. Of that, 10 billion dollars was spent on advertising. I’d
like to focus on the advertising. Certainly, some media
exposure is necessary to communicate candidate qualifications and
priorities. I don’t know how much that is, but we could probably safely
assume that the basics didn't require the entire 10 billion dollars.
Who
benefited? At one level or another, directly or indirectly, that money
was contributed by individuals. Did they get a good return on
investment? Power, access, a winning candidate? Was there a public
good? A more informed electorate on the candidates and the issues?
Who
made money on the transactions? The people being paid to run the
political organizations? Sure. The advertising companies producing
the advertising? Yeah. Political consultants? Television
stations. It can’t hurt the profitability of a media company to get
swamped by advertising revenue every other year.
To
continue the thought, are there any other needs in America that might have
benefited from that amount of spending? Healthcare? Housing?
Child care? Education? Job opportunities? It doesn't seem to
me that the public gets commensurate value for the amount of money spent. I
could see why a small segment of the population would like exactly how the
process is working right now, though.
While
we’re at it, let’s consider an economic question. Is this a positive
thing for the economy? Even if money is spent that doesn’t produce
results, it’s still money spent and pumped into the economy. If the
people that got this money spend it, they buy goods and services that other
people produced. The cash keeps churning, even if the original intent was
not met. Does it matter to the economy whether money is spent well, or is
all spending equally positive? My gut tells me that money spent on, say,
investing in a child’s future or improving a neighborhood and opportunities for
the people there, or even just building a necessary bridge between cities and
people, produces more value than spending that doesn’t produce any lasting
results.
It’s
election night.
Two
years ago, Judy and I were camping with no access to television and went to bed
early. Tonight, we’re glued to the TV. There is a difference in
enthusiasm.