So What?
There was around 35 to 40 minutes of discussion of the Cameron Parish Generator scandal on KLRZ's Talk of the Bayou program this morning. It was about 80% finding Mr. Cheramie had done wrong. Brandi, Mr. Cheramie's daughter, called in three times and accused the host, Capt. Kirk, of being biased. I guess bringing up the topic and taking calls from people on both sides of the issue is being biased in the nonaccountable, immoral and unethical universe of the Charlotte Randolph Administration.
Your's truly came in for some biting remarks. Brandi took offense with my linking her marriage announcement to prove the connection between Mr. Cheramie and the recipient of that particular generator. The link served its purpose and was removed today.
Additionally, Brandi accused me of being financed by somebody and associating with Daniel Lorraine, implying that Daniel is someone you shouldn't associate with. Her former accusation is false and even if it were true is irrelevant. The latter is true. Daniel is a friend of mine. Besides Daniel, I associate with alot of people Brandi would likely look down her nose at. But, that's her problem, not mine.
If I am to be judged, then I should be judged on whether I am credible. I accused Charlotte Randolph of misusing a Parish credit card. She hasn't denied it. In court, that would be an uncontested, proven fact. The DA punted that to the Attorney General. I accused Ray Cheramie of loaning public generators to his family. He hasn't denied it. That is also an uncontested, proven fact. The DA punted that to the Ethics Commission. I filed suit to obtain uncensored documents. The Council conceded the case.
Why I do what I do is irrelevant. The "why he does it" or my motive is a method used in argumentation to confuse; to take your attention away from the central issue. What is relevant is whether I can prove my accusations. Since I began my scrutiny of the Randolph Administration, I appear to be batting a thousand in that department.
The problem with Mr. Cheramie's actions is not so much that his mother got a generator. I think the Public could have let that go. The problem is that out of 5 generators he was "issued", 3 went to people with familial connections to him. That, the Public cannot forgive. And that, my friends, is the central issue in this story.
There was around 35 to 40 minutes of discussion of the Cameron Parish Generator scandal on KLRZ's Talk of the Bayou program this morning. It was about 80% finding Mr. Cheramie had done wrong. Brandi, Mr. Cheramie's daughter, called in three times and accused the host, Capt. Kirk, of being biased. I guess bringing up the topic and taking calls from people on both sides of the issue is being biased in the nonaccountable, immoral and unethical universe of the Charlotte Randolph Administration.
Your's truly came in for some biting remarks. Brandi took offense with my linking her marriage announcement to prove the connection between Mr. Cheramie and the recipient of that particular generator. The link served its purpose and was removed today.
Additionally, Brandi accused me of being financed by somebody and associating with Daniel Lorraine, implying that Daniel is someone you shouldn't associate with. Her former accusation is false and even if it were true is irrelevant. The latter is true. Daniel is a friend of mine. Besides Daniel, I associate with alot of people Brandi would likely look down her nose at. But, that's her problem, not mine.
If I am to be judged, then I should be judged on whether I am credible. I accused Charlotte Randolph of misusing a Parish credit card. She hasn't denied it. In court, that would be an uncontested, proven fact. The DA punted that to the Attorney General. I accused Ray Cheramie of loaning public generators to his family. He hasn't denied it. That is also an uncontested, proven fact. The DA punted that to the Ethics Commission. I filed suit to obtain uncensored documents. The Council conceded the case.
Why I do what I do is irrelevant. The "why he does it" or my motive is a method used in argumentation to confuse; to take your attention away from the central issue. What is relevant is whether I can prove my accusations. Since I began my scrutiny of the Randolph Administration, I appear to be batting a thousand in that department.
The problem with Mr. Cheramie's actions is not so much that his mother got a generator. I think the Public could have let that go. The problem is that out of 5 generators he was "issued", 3 went to people with familial connections to him. That, the Public cannot forgive. And that, my friends, is the central issue in this story.
posted by Carl A. Chauvin at 2:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home