Advance and be Recognized

Our friends at Red State Diaries took issue with Beth Chapman's support for requiring photo identification from voters. Alabamian wrote here that federal law prohibits such a requirement.

I guess he was surprised last week. As reported by the Associated Press, on Friday, 25 August, The US Department of Justice granted preclearance of Georgia's new photo identification law.

Of course, the Georgia law is sure to land in court. And who knows what the judges will rule.

Photo identification is currently in use in a number of states, despite Alabamian's claim on his blog, including Louisiana. However, as Dan Tokaji and other election law specialists point out in this letter, the facts in the Georgia scenario are such that court may well rule the law violates the Voting Rights Act.

Where's Worley?

At left is a shot of the cover of the first "newsletter" that Nancy Worley (D-Alabama) had printed as secretary of state.

In case you missed the original release of this publication, allow me to present to you a scanned version of the document.

Click these links to view all 20 pages of the first "newsletter" released by Nancy Worley (D-Alabama) during her first year of office: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.

Worley's newsletter is notable for several reasons:

1. Despite claiming her respect for Alabamians and the tax dollars they pay to the state, she chose to put out what is more of a magazine rather than a newsletter.
   
2. She also chose to release this beast of a newsletter not just in black and white, but with color as well, which drives up the printing cost.
   
3. She mailed the magazine to over 7,000 people, according to state records.
   
4. She incurred the expenses for this publication, including printing 20 pages in color with photos and paying for the postage, at a time when the state, including the secretary of state's office, was laying off employees due to budget concerns. (Remind you of a certain SUV?)

Does that sound like the work of a frugal and responsible officeholder?

Interestingly, as far as I know, she has not yet released another "newsletter" since then.

Thinking out loud, I figure she put out her magazine in 2003, with no follow up, as a public relations effort leading people to think she was hard at work during her first six-months in office. Her supporters, such as yellow-dog Democrats, would eat it up. Meanwhile, she probably assumed that those people who objected to her extravagant taxpayer-funded self-promotion would forget about it before her 2006 re-election campaign.

TODAY'S CHALLENGE: Remember the "Where's Waldo?" books? See if you can find each instance of Worley appearing in a photo in her magazine.

BONUS CHALLENGE: How many of those photos relate directly to her job as secretary of state?

Sometimes Moore is Less

Thanks to Lee P. for providing, via his blog abamablog.blogspot.com, a heads up on the anti-Moore blog, blogagainstroy.blogspot.com.

Lee, on his blog, and Slade and Collin, on the anti-Moore blog, share their views as to why Moore is unfit to serve as governor. My take is similar to theirs, but a little different.

I have no complaint with posting the Ten Commandments in public buildings as long as they are presented in a historical context. Although I do not believe that government should endorse any one particular religion or belief system, it is perfectly acceptable, in my mind, that government be able to acknowledge particular religions just as it might acknowledge other aspects of American culture.

Moore fails to get my support on two counts. First, he was clear in his stated intent that he didn't want just an acknowledgement of the role of Christianity in American culture. He wanted government to endorse the Christian God as the one and true God to the exclusion of other faiths. I do not think it's government's place to put its stamp of approval on any particular belief system.

Second, and more to the point of his fitness to serve in state office, his decision, as the presiding judge of the state's highest court, to ignore an order from a superior court showed extremly poor judgement and an extreme lack of respect for our constitutional system of government. I think a number of Christians who voted for Moore in 2000 and supported him on the Ten Commandments issue later split away from his ranks when they saw him, in his official capacity, defy properly constituted authority.

To make matters worse, Moore whined and complained about being victimized. Even if I disagree with someone on a particular issue, I can respect that person if he stands firm for his cause. I cannot support someone who practices civil disobedience but does not want to suffer the consequences in the name of their cause.

Civic Morality

In today's issue of The Birmingham News, Joe Openshaw, a board member of the ACLU of Alabama, wrote in a letter to the editor that

"... by working to protect and expand the civil rights of all Alabamians (and Americans) who are oppressed - including children, minorities and the poor - the ACLU is actually preserving the moral foundation of our country."

I wish that various groups would quit acting like they are the authoritative arbiters of what is "moral" in America.

You might think I'm a moral relativist, but I'm not. I have some very clear and well-developed ideas of what is "right" and "wrong" - as I'm sure you do too. However, I also know that sometimes my standards may not square up identically to other people's standards.

I'm not talking about things like murder or theft. But when you get to hot-button issues like censorship, abortion, criminal rights, divorce, and same-sex marriage, to name a few of the hottest, our society reflects quite a number of rifts between various conceptions of "morality."

When we speak of "legislating morality," we should understand that it's not government's role, at least not under the U.S. Constitution, to codify any type of religious morality, per se, be it Christian, Jewish, Wiccan, Muslim, etc. The First Amendment, if its establishment clause means anything, says that government shall not endorse (although it make acknowledge) any particular religion.

The government, of course, everyday defines things that are "right" and "wrong," "legal" and "illegal." But if anything, the law is a civic morality. The passage of laws governing socially acceptable behavior is the defining of morality through democratic mechanisms. It involves legislative processes within a constitutional framework rather than the words engraved on stone tablets or uttered by prophets.

This observation is not to say that religious people have no role in trying to shape civic morality. Indeed, they should be encouraged to bring their conceptions of right and wrong action into the political arena. Just as anyone from other schools of thought may propose policies for the government to adopt, so too may Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.

Similarly, though, they have to be prepared to jump through two hurdles. First, they have to convince others, a majority of others, to support their proposed policy. And, then, they have to ensure that the policy does not impinge on any constitutional rights.

Unfortunately, too many people do not understand the distinction between a religious morality and a civic morality in our constitutional democracy.

One - two - three - c'mon Mr. Lee

So a state senator is caught in the capitol, long before business hours (pre-dawn, according to The Birmingham News report), with a woman.

I don't have much of a problem with the fact Senator Curt Lee (R-Jasper) was in the Capitol. He's a legislator and has access to that building. I'm not even sure I have a problem with the fact that he was there with an "unidentified" woman, although one wonders why he was alone with a woman in the capitol before dawn.

I am wondering, if the incident happened on 22 July 2005, as the News reported, why Lee was offering up an apology on 24 August. Did it take him a month to figure out that people might not look favorably on his antics?

(Being with a woman alone in the capitol before dawn surely has tongues wagging. It also looks very immature for a 35 year old man to be running away when Capitol staff spotted him and his woman friend, as reported by the Montgomery Advertiser.)

I guess though that if Stantis has his cartoon right, the woman in question wasn't Nancy Worley.

"Reverend Hit Man"

John Haas, a citizen of Nebraska, writing to the Omaha World-Herald takes this insightful look at a cleric who advocates death threats on public officials:

"The Rev. Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition and host of the Christian Broadcasting Network's 'The 700 Club,' said on air, 'You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination. But if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.'

"When religious leaders from other nations such as Iran do the same thing, we call them supporters of terrorism."

Of course, we Americans are much more inclined to consider rhetoric like Robertson's to be hyperbole; or perhaps he was just misunderstood. Or, as Robertson would have us believe, his comments were misrepresented by that ever-present bogeyman, "the media."

It's strange to me that some Americans do not respond more strongly to such extremist comments, or even actions that go beyond the pale, if said or conducted by Americans.

We can't even look to our past and offer up own examples of atrocities. Take James Dobson. As reported by The American Prospect from his 3 August "Focus on the Family" show's transcript, Dobson commented about embryonic stem-cell research:

"... I have to ask this question: In World War II, the Nazis experimented on human beings in horrible ways in the concentration camps, and, I imagine, if you wanted to take the time to read about it, there would have been some discoveries there that benefited mankind... [Y]ou remove ethics and morality and you get what happened in Nazi Germany."

Or you get the American south when the federal government conducted the Tuskegee
Syphilis Experiment.

Certainly, the unconscionable experiment in Tuskegee was not on the same magnitude of Nazi atrocities during World War II. However, it seems we should learn not only from infamous actions in other countries but from our own moral failures as well. And we should stand ready to oppose those in our midst, like Robertson, who speaks favorably of atrocious actions.

Answer, Continued

Lest the conservative readers of my blog give me up as a traitor to the cause, or the liberal readers consider me a complete pacifist, it's important to note that my position on the war in Iraq is not as cut and dry as either of these groups might like.

Liberals, mostly Democrats, seem to believe that it's time for the U.S. troops to leave Iraq. They contend that since Iraq did not possess the alleged weapons of mass destruction as Bush claimed, our military presence from day one has been illegitimate. And the longer we stay there, the more illegitimate it becomes.

Conservatives, mostly Republicans, seem to believe all Bush has said about the Iraqi connection to the terror attacks of 11 September 2001. They claim that the war in Iraq has become tne "central front" in the war on terror and we must defeat the insurgents there if we are to prevent a blossoming of terrorism in other parts of the world. They claim that we cannot leave Iraq a "failed state" because it would be come a safe-haven for terrorists, just as Afghanistan did after the repelled Soviet invasion.

I agree that our original invasion was illegitimate since it was sold to Americans on the grounds of self-defense against Iraqi weapons of mass of destruction. Further, I do not see the original invasion as justified in light of 11 September. The Bush Administration has shown no meaningful connection to 11 September on the part of Saddam Hussein or his government.

However, it's obvious that we started something in Iraq that we must finish, whatever it is "finished" means.

While no one would argue that it was preferable to have Saddam in power, no American should argue that Iraq is clearly in a bigger mess than it was before the invasion. Since we created the mess that is in there now, we should do what we can to stabilize the country. And in terms of stabilize, I mean that we should do all in our power to shut down all combatants (call them insurgents or terrorists, whichever you liked) that oppose peaceful means to establish a new government in Iraq.

Unfortunately, shutting down all adversarial combatants means a more aggressive military campaign, something I doubt that Americans, or our political leadership, have the stomach for. Obviously a stepped-up offensive means that our troops would be put further in harms way. While I do not take likely the risks to life and limb that are leveled against our soldiers, I am sensible enough to know that such losses are part and parcel of war.

We can try to minimize the number of deaths and dismemberments, but we cannot let that be our central goal. Our central objective must be to win the war. Our military knew that all too well in the First and Second World War. Even with technology that better equips our troops to attack and survive, we should remain mindful of that we cannot place the safety of individual lives above the greater good being served through armed combat.

I agree with Michael Scheuer, in his book Imperial Hubris, who states that to defeat the insurgents in Iraq and elsewhere we must be more aggressive militarily.

Once we have the insurgency quelled, though, we should get prepared to pack up and leave. By that point, we should have helped train enough Iraqi servicepeople to handle their country's security. The local politicians could then go about their business of re-forming the new government.

While many on the right, and in the Bush Administration, hate to admit we have occupied Iraq, we should see that a better model for handling Iraq is the way we and our allies fought World War II (aggressively) and then managed the postwar (competently). That's our best chance of keeping analogies to Vietnam at bay.

Answer: Where would we be without war in Iraq?

It's hard to say for sure ... but I think that we do know this:

... we wouldn't have created an unstable country in Iraq, a haven for terrorists, and yet another reason for Muslims to hate the United States.

... we wouldn't have lost the lives of over 1500 members of our military.

... we wouldn't have seen the dismemberment of many thousands more members of the military.

... we wouldn't have been attacked by Saddam's alleged "WMD".

... and, perhaps most importantly, we could have focused our military and intelligence resources on the fight against the terrorists -- without having to take them on in a place like Iraq where they have an advantage over our military, a military that is led by civilians who do not want to let them fight and win.

Where would we be without war in Iraq?

Since there are so many people, such as our own president, who believe we had to go to war in Iraq, I'm wondering what they think would have happened if we had not gone to war against that country.

If you are one of the people who believe we had to attack Iraq, what do you think would have happened if we had not launched that assault?

Post your answer, please, using the comment link below. Anonymous replies are welcome.

Political Agents

Those who think I'm conservative, and those who think I'm liberal, this posting will have a little bit for each of you.

As reported by MSNBC, with Bush's radio address today, we are shown again what revisionist history is all about:

"President Bush said Saturday U.S. troops in Iraq were fighting to protect Americans at home from terrorism like the Sept. 11 attacks four years ago."

While not literally charging that Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attacks, Bush is again attempting to raise that specter so that he can justify the war in that country. It's a rather disingenuous attempt to rewrite history. He should be ashamed.

Lest we forget, even the Christian evangelist Max Lucado, speaking on Larry King Live on 11 March 2003 clearly believed that Bush wanted to wage the war as an effort to defend America from an Iraqi threat:

"You know, C.S. Lewis said that to love your enemy doesn't mean that you never hold him accountable for his deeds. ... Again, I come back to the fact that the president, I think, has a moral obligation to protect innocent people here and abroad, but especially here. He's given supervision over us and he is privy to information that, to be quite candid, I'm not and my trust must be that if he
engages us in this conflict it's because he sees that we are in threat, which I think we are, we are in danger and at some point you have to protect the people here from that type of despot and that danger."

Lucado, of course, isn't a radical leftist. Yet he chose -- and many of we Americans did -- to believe Bush was acting in our best interests. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a matter of betrayed trust. This fact is like a nail after each successive hit of the hammer's head - it is seated deeper each time a new revelation surfaces about what the CIA knew - and what the CIA knew that the Bush Administration chose to ignore.

Anti-war activists have made Cindy Sheehan their poster girl, evoking strong criticism of her from Bush loyalists. In turn, people, usually anti-war Democrats, have responded to the criticism saying that Sheehan, as a grieving mother, should not be attacked for the public position she has taken against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Bush Administration.

Sheehan deserves the condolences and appreciation of a nation that sent his son to a war in which he would die. We should also understand the grief that comes with the death of a family member, especially a mother's son. However, made the choice to thrust herself into the political arena. She chose to become a political agent rather than presenting herself as just a grieving mom.

Perhaps grief clouded her judgement. But if she did not want to be part of the political fray, open to criticism by Bush's supporters, then she should have stayed away from issues other than her son. She chose to attack and, in turn, should expect that in public debate she will be attacked in return.

That said, I am not a Bush supporter when it comes to what is going on in Iraq. His administration has failed miserably, first in its decision to wage war in Iraq and then its failed prosecution of that war. It's time to fight the war there the way it should be fought or bring the troops home. (And, no, I do not believe it was a matter of not planning appropriately for the "peace" or post-war Iraq. The war is - and never was - over, at least not in the sense of previous wars.)

Worley in Review

Despite one Democratic Party blogger's delusional assessment of Nancy Worley's (D-Alabama) performance in office, it's good to know that not all Democrats operate under the same misperception.

On 5 July 2005, "JCH" posted a piece on the blog "Bamacrat" that said this:

"I thought we'd seen the last of Nancy Worley for awhile, but I should have known better. Worley has become the election dictator for the state. Alabama is working to become compliant with the federal Help America Vote Act which requires the state to do some updating of its voting system. Disregarding a unanimous recommendation from a 24 member advisory committee, Worley decided to choose the Diebold system over the committee's recommendation – which included an Alabama based company. Worley's defense is that the Diebold happened to be the lowest bidder.

"That's odd; money didn't seem to matter when Worley decided to buy a top of the line Eddie Bauer Ford Expedition over the Ford Taurus."

Then we also have Kristopher, at the blog "The World Around You," who shared these thoughts earlier this year and last:

"Legislators want to address the problems with the Secretary of State by stripping her authority over [boards of registrars]. This makes no sense, and I'm glad the probate judges came out against it. The problem is with Nancy Worley, not the structure of the Secretary of State's office. Worley has found ways to mess up in the SOS office that no one even knew existed. She was ill-qualified for the job and needs to be gone in 2006, but the solution is not to remove responsibilities that rightfully belong in that office." [18 February 2005]

"Secretary of State Nancy Worley is one of the more incompetent public officials I have seen in my time in Alabama. She makes more news for bonehead decisions than a Secretary of State ever should." [6 January 2005]

"I understand that things can stressful in that office this time of year, but I get the impression that Nancy is not a particularly pleasant person to work under." [24 October 2004]

"Ms. Worley seems to be a power addict. She's trying to make the Secretary of State's office much grander in scale than it is. A good Secretary of State should be seen and not heard, much of her duties focus on ensuring that elections are run correctly and campaign finance reporting. Making the paper every other week is not a good thing." [21 November 2003]

Perhaps the blogger Lee P., on 14 April 2005, had it right on "A Bama Blog":

"Depending on the day of the week, Worley has blamed attempts to take away her authority on racism, Republican partisanship, personal attacks by people who aren't willing to work hard, and personality conflicts with "touchy-feely" registrars.

"Mrs. Worley seems a little uptight...maybe she needs to take a little time off and curl up with a good book ."

Responses? Email and Otherwise

If you would like to take issue with anything I've said, or will say, on this blog, you can e-mail me at watchmansouth@gmail.com or hit the "comments" link at the end of a posting.

If you would like to remain anonymous in your rantings, I have now enabled "anonymous" comments. So, in the immortal words of Dubya, "bring it on!"

A Political Liability?

The Alabama Democratic Party weblog has been telling us why Beth Chapman has no integrity.

I'm waiting for the ADP to tell us why we should vote FOR Worley rather than harping on what they don't like about Chapman.

Personally, if the Democratic Party doesn't 1) find someone to oppose Worley in the primary (Worley will surely lose), or 2) otherwise get Worley to abandon a re-election bid, I fear the Democrats will lose the secretary of state seat to the Republicans.

If the Democratic leaders don't take the Worley problem seriously, it will show just how out of touch they are. At least Ken Guin (D-Carbon Hill), as The Tuscaloosa News reported, had the guts to point out the problem and solution:

Guin said he feels the bill [taking the ability to fire voter registrars away from the secretary of state] would have been in violation of the federal law, but warned Worley that she may have to answer for how her office is operated when she comes up for reelection next year.

“Where this ought to be addressed is at the ballot box," he said.

We're from Hoover and Here to Help You

I've been following this story in The Birmingham News and there's something about it that troubles me.

The Hoover City Council decided to kick out of a city building an organization that was providing social services to hispanics in the Hoover area. The majority of council members who voted for ending the contract with Catholic Family Services cited only "complaints", but the news article didn't specify what the complaints are. However, what was interesting to me, by omission, is that the city did not seem to be (openly) alleging that the day laborers are illegal aliens.

Of course, that's the subtext to all this. Why else would the city want to break up up the efforts of these people to find work?

There does not appear to be any reports of concerns about public safety. In fact, it seems that previous members of the city council voted to grant the contract to Catholic Family Services because there were public safety concerns about the way day labroers used to get hook up with employers.

Unless there are valid complaints about public safety or illegal activity, the City of Hoover should have left well enough alone. If they suspect illegal activity, they should bring in the proper authorities to investigate and prosecute.

As it stands, it appears that the city was taking punitive action against a group of people merely because they are hispanics.

In today's climate, can you imagine political leaders making a choice that attempts to frustrate individuals seeking an honest day's work?

And So It Begins

The Democratic Party's official blogger has fired the first salvo against Beth Chapman (R-Alabama), the current state auditor, as she begins her campaign for Secretary of State. But if this is the best they can do, they should just be quiet.

The crux of their argument is that Chapman had a lapse of ethics by using her official state auditor web site to disseminate her speech "Stand Up America", a speech the blogger considers hate speech. The blogger wrote:

"When I read Beth Chapman's press release the other day announcing her candidacy for secretary of state, I almost fell out of my chair laughing.

"Her 'only campaign promise' is to promote honesty and integrity in government.

"For those who want to know why this - and thereby her candidacy - is such a joke, click here."

When you click the link in the quote, you are shown Google's cache of the page on the auditor's web site containing the "Stand Up America" speech. Supposedly, Chapman's posting this speech on a state web site evidences a terrible lack of ethics. I must ask "why?"

I don't agree with every point made by Chapman in her speech. For example, I choose to not refer to environmentalists "tree huggers" or people of a progressive persuasion as "hippy, Birkenstock wearing, tie-dyed liberals."

And I don't agree that it's is completely factual. For example, there are many celebrities, especially in elder generations, who served in the military.

But a political speech is just that, a political speech. People can agree or disagree with Chapman's points. That's part of being human. And in a small-d democracy, we can freely act on those agreements or disagreements in the political arena.

To charge that posting the speech on a state web site is an ethical lapse, though, is ludicrous. Politicians are becoming savvy to the Internet and the power of web sites. State officials, Democrats and Republicans, have been using their state web sites to publish their positions long before Chapman posted her strident piece on patriotism.

But if we accept that a state official is wrong for using state resources to disseminate his or her own political beliefs, then Nancy Worley (D-AEA) is guilty of that as well. I have attended meetings, such as Alabama Democratic Conference functions, where she spoke very partisan messages. She arrived at those meetings, I noticed, courtesy of taxpayer's funds and the infamouse state SUV (a controversy in and of itself).

Driven to Extremes

In the event you do not recall it, or perhaps you missed it the first go around, Nancy Worley (D-Alabama) decided after taking office in 2003 that she needed a $30,000 Ford Expedition SUV as her official car. Although many newspapers, radio talk show hosts and others were highly critical of the move, Bob Ingram provides a good description and analysis of what happened here. His conclusion:

"When asked why she couldn't have been content with a Ford Taurus which she could have bought for about $11,000 she replied that the $19,000 difference wouldn't have saved anyone's job.

"Admittedly, in the scheme of things, the expenditure of $30,000-plus is not a big thing when we are talking about shortages of hundreds of millions of dollars...but the message it sends to the already suspect taxpayers was devastating. And disgusting."

Not to put too fine a point on her lack of respect for taxpayers and their money, I should note that Worley currently has assigned state cars to 3 of her political appointees, including one who drives a service van home and to work although he has a desk job in the Capitol building.

I'm not sure why an office such as the Secretary of State needs vehicles assigned to three appointees. We grant Worley may need one, but I cannot imagine her office needs a total of four people to be prepared with state vehicles to meet the responsibilities of that office.

Meanwhile, we Alabama taxpayers are paying the maintenance and upkeep on cars that her political appointees use primarily to drive from home to work.

Judicious Activism?

According to a report by the Associated Press, the Alabama Bar Association would like to have the governor appoint judges to Alabama's appellate courts: court of criminal appeals, court of civil appeals, and the state Supreme Court.

The head of the Republican Party, Twinkle Andress Cavanaugh, has come out against the proposal:

"At a time when voters have serious concerns about the role of judges in society, we believe we ought to focus on making judges more accountable to the people they serve rather than less accountable."

The article, citing Bobby Segall, the president of the Bar Association, says that the proposal

"... has been a goal of the ABA for a number of years and is aimed at ending the costly partisan battles that have raised the perception that judges have a conflict because of the money contributed to their campaigns."

It seems Republicans can't get their positions straight. At the federal level, they want politics and ideology removed from the selection process of federal appeals judges, including Supreme Court justices. But, according to Cavanaugh, the GOP is willing to let politics and ideology rule the day by continuing the practice of popularly electing state appeals judges.

Cavanaugh is concerned that judges unfairly administer justice when appointed rather than elected, presumably due to elitism or the risk of an "out of touch" governor making the appointments.

Segall is concerned that judges unfairly administer justice when elected rather
than appointed because the electoral process makes our judges look like they are bought and paid for.

Alabamians are caught in the middle.

Even Out the Colors

You'll have to forgive me for taking Nancy Worley (D-Alabama) at her word. She said she wants our decision about re-electing her as Secretary of State to be based on her record in office. Does that include her political savvy?

I wonder what blacks in Alabama would say if they knew she was overestimating their presence on the state's voter registration roles?

Last week, Worley attended an event celebrating the 40th anniversary of passage of the Voting Rights Act. In covering her remarks, the Selma Times reported that

"[i]n 1965, Worley said, around 20 percent of blacks in Alabama were registered to vote, while around 70 percent of whites were registered.

"'Was this a fair and equitable Alabama? No. Was this an Alabama that represented its citizens? No,' Worley said. 'People were still denied the right to vote. You would have thought that all the barriers would have been broken down (after the passage of the 15th Amendment). After the Voting Rights Act, there are still barriers that need to be broken down.'"

"Worley said that today, 40 years after the Voting Rights Act, there is an even number of whites and blacks registered to vote."

Call me strange, but I would never have thought that blacks and whites are now in equal numbers on Alabama's voter lists. I don't doubt great strides have been made in registering blacks for voting in Alabama. And I believe that the Voting Rights Act has been a critical tool for making access to voter registration and voting a reality in Alabama.

However, the white population in Alabama is far greater than the black population here. It just doesn't seem likely to me that blacks would register at such a disproportionately high rate, or that whites would register at such a disproportionately low rate, that we would have an even number of whites and blacks registered as Worley apparently claimed.

So, I decided to check the numbers, straight from the horses mouth. And what did I find? According to the Secretary of State's own web site (i.e., the web site of the agency under Worley's management), Alabama had 2,492,253 active voters as of July 2005. Whites accounted for 1,847,651 of registered voters; black, 598,516.
Hm. Let's see. Does 1,847,651 equal 598,516?

Wait. I almost forgot. Worley taught English and Latin before she retired. Not math.

For the Record

State Auditor Beth Chapman (R-Alabama) announced her candidacy for Secretary of State on 8 August 2005. As reported by the Mobile Register, Chapman said

"As secretary of state, I will be the state's top election official, but I will never be so arrogant as to assume I am the state's only election official.

"I will return every phone call, respond to every e-mail, every question, meet every need."

Chapman's comments seemed directed at the current office holder, Nancy Worley (R-Alabama), who has had bitter relations with the county boards of registrars over the past two and a half years. Also, more recently, Worley has taken heat from other election officials, such as probate judges, over her selection of Diebold to provide the new statewide voter registration system. Probate judges, along with other members of a committee established by state law, had unanimously recommended a different vendor for the system. Worley, however, chose the committee's third choice.

Worley, in her response to Chapman's announcement, said

"I plan to run on my record for re-election ... We've accomplished many things in the almost three years we've been in office. I'll be very pleased to run on my record, a record of work and accountability."

Worley's eagerness to "run on [her] record" may be a blessing for Chapman. Worley has received much criticism, even from fellow party members, for the way she has run the Secretary of State's office.
From her highly-criticized decision to purchase a Ford Expedition (with Eddie Bauer package) while also laying off staff members, to her power grabs targeted at registrars and the statewide voter registration system, she starts out on shaky ground.

And there is more to come. Worley acknowledged in to the Mobile Register that she has not yet signed a contract with Diebold for the voter registration system. According to the Mobile Register piece,

"[Worley] said Monday that a final contract has not been ironed out, but repeated her contention that Diebold offers the best quality for the state."

That system must be in place by 1 January 2006 to comply with federal law (see my related post).

Chapman has pledged to run a clean campaign. It will be interesting to watch Worley accuse Chapman of violating that promise when Chapman offers to honor Worley's request of running on their records.

Fair Exchange Value

Regardless of your position on whether or not the government should be able execute any of its prisoners, I would hope that you do not share the sentiment of Kent Scheidegger. Schiedegger is the legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (CJLF), a group that is in favor of allowing the government to use capital
punishment.

As reported by CNN, Schiedegger stated

"I wouldn't say that 20 or 30 cases out of 8,000 constitutes a broken system."

His statement was in response to comments by Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. Again, according to the CNN report, Stevens said DNA evidence has shown

"... that a substantial number of death sentences have been imposed erroneously.

"It indicates that there must be serious flaws in our administration of criminal justice."

The Death Penalty Information Center, a group that opposes the government's use of the death penalty, is cited by CNN as claiming that more than three dozen death row inmates have been exonerated since 2000.

It seems to me that even supporters of the death penalty should be troubled by the prospect of an innocent man or woman being executed by the state, not to mention the fact that if we execute an innocent, then someone who is guilty has not been brought before the bar of justice.

For those who want to maintain the death penalty, the questions are tough.

To follow up on Schiedegger's comment, how many innocent people executed by the state will constitute a broken system? From another angle, how many innocent people executed is a fair exchange for whatever deterrent effect the death penalty has on the criminal-minded?

Short of requiring DNA evidence in all capital cases, is there anyway to avoid erroneous convictions when no eye witness is available to testify? (And we know that even eye witnesses have been proven to be wrong before.)

Humans are not known for perfection. We make mistakes, and those mistakes are made in all aspects of life. How we accept that reality when a person's life weighs in the balance says a lot about who we are.

Diebold Dance

Two weeks ago, it turns out, the Oakland Tribune reported that the California Secretary of State has rejected Diebold, Inc.'s "flagship" voting machine for use in that state:

After possibly the most extensive testing ever on a voting system, California has rejected Diebold's flagship electronic voting machine because of printer jams and screen freezes, sending local elections officials scrambling for other means of voting.

Bruce McPherson, the Secretary of State, stated that

"[t]here was a failure rate of about 10 percent, and that's not good enough for the voters of California and not good enough for me."

Having certification rejected by one of the largest states in America is quite an embarrassment for the company. Further, it comes on the heels of other controversy surrounding the company in the 2004 presidential election.

Now, voting machines are not the same thing as a statewide voter registration database. However, given Diebold's track record (plus this new development in California), I wonder what value is in Secretary of State Nancy Worley's (D-Alabama) decision to select Diebold for the voter registration system over the unanimous recommendation of an array of election officials and others. (See my related post.)

Since there has been a delay in Worley's signing a contract with Diebold for the voter registration system (again, see this post), and the 1 January 2006 for implementation date for that system looming, one wonders exactly what issues are holding up the contract. Are they "terms" from Diebold that Worley finds unacceptable? Or vice versa? Or is it just another situation of Worley's incompetence in office affecting her ability to get the job done?

Ruler of Her Spirit

Michael Scheuer (a.k.a. "Anonymous"), the author of Imperial Hubris, believes that America's strategy regarding the export of democracy to places like the Middle East is not based in a good understanding of American roots.

In an essay on antiwar.com, he professes that

[e]xporting freedom and democracy is not a Grand Strategy. It may be an ambition, an obsession, or – most likely – a hallucination. The idea that such exports are a "Grand Strategy" spotlights the ignorance about America of the men and women who today lead the country. Ditto for many of the 535 individuals in the Senate and House. America is not a nation meant to order others how to live and then push them at bayonet point into that lifestyle. The cost of such a policy, John Quincy Adams wrote, would be the loss of America's soul.

While many in today's (and yesterday's) political arena are quick place the badge of world policeman on America's chest or to grant knighthood to our country as the world's liberator, some of the nation's early leaders believed that we should be careful about foreign entanglements. (Remember Washington?)

John Quincy Adams wrote, in the essay Monsters to Destroy,

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

And for the business-minded, Thomas Paine wrote in his essay Common Sense that

"[m]uch hath been said of the united strength of Britain and the colonies, that in conjunction they might bid defiance to the world ... Besides, what have we to do with setting the world at defiance? Our plan is commerce, and that, well attended to, will secure us the peace and friendship of all Europe; because, it is the interest of all Europe to have America a free port. Her trade will always be a protection, and her barrenness of gold and silver secure her from invaders."

Certainly there are times and circumstances when America must stand and deliver militarily to preserve our own national interests. I'm unsure, though, when we went from trying to form our own "more perfect union" and decided that we are compelled to export our blessings to nations of our selection (... assuming that we are capable of doing so and after fairly selecting the countries upon whom we would bestow said blessings) .

As Adams warned, if America is not judicious in our use of the military in pursuit of foreign policy and if we decide that we should act in the interests of the people of other nation's, not primarily our own,

"[s]he might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit...."

Riley (R-Ashland) vs Hubbert (D-AEA)

During the campaign for Governor Riley's (R-Alabama) tax reform package in 2003, some Republican wondered about his loyalty to the GOP roots. Paul Hubbert (D-AEA), executive director of the Alabama Education Association (AEA), supported Riley's proposals, a move that some people thought indicated Riley had made a pact with the devil. Many Alabamians, especially these Republicans, believe that the AEA is Alabama's own dastardly version of radical liberalism incarnate.

It seems that Riley wants to rehabilitate himself with the GOP base by poking the AEA in the eye. First, he attempted to limit the cost of living raise teachers proposed for teachers in the regular legislative session. The Birmingham News then reported that the governor would let a bill from the special session die that would have offered tax incentives to developers of theme parks in the state. (The bill died at midnight 4 August.)

His beef? It's not that he disagrees with purposes of the legislation. He characterized the proposal this way:

"It's an important bill. It's a bill we need to enact."

However, he disliked one aspect of the bill. It would have created an authority that would decide whether or not to offer tax incentives to particular projects. That authority would have seven members. Four individuals would be members of the authority by virtue of their official positions with the state: the directors of the Alabama Development Office, the Bureau of Tourism and Travel, and the Alabama Industrial Development Training Program; rounded it out with the Director of Finance. The other three members would be appointed by the governor. But here's the rub, the governor would have to choose from a list of nominees submitted by the executive director of the AEA (Hubbert).

Combine that requirement with the bill's stipulation that a majority of five votes is required for the authority to approve incentives and you have the basis of Riley's objection, as explained by Riley:

"... I don't believe any non-elected association or group should have absolute veto over decisions that are going to affect tourism and economic development in the state of Alabama."

Riley, has a point. The AEA is a private association. And if none of the AEA-nominated appointees to the authority support a project, then the tax incentives would not be offered. (Of course, to make Riley's point, one would have to believe that the AEA-nominated appointees would be toadies with sworn allegiance to the AEA, voting in lockstep, which may be true. And certainly there are people who believe that.)

However, according to The Birmingham News report, Hubbert makes a good point as well:

"Hubbert said Riley or another governor, if allowed to appoint whomever he or she wanted to the authority, likely would pick tourism officials who would be freer at handing out tax refunds and wouldn't care as much whether refunds cost schools money rather than increased net tax collections by bringing new attractions and jobs to Alabama."

Of course, that doesn't explain why the AEA and Hubbert believe that Hubbert (at least for now) is the only person who can adequately protect education dollars from funding corporate welfare. I don't disagree that the education community should have advocates who participate in deciding what projects will be offered tax incentives that cost schools money. (I'm making the assumption here that the tax incentives are good public policy in the first place, which they may not be. But that's a topic for another day.)

I certainly don't mind education advocates having the ability to veto a proposal if it doesn't look like a good investment in the long run. But there are plenty of other ways to find responsible and fair-minded advocates of education and responsible funding for schools without ceding a monopoly to the AEA.

Liar, liar ... pants on fire!

The Alabama Democratic Party has a blogger who made this posting about Supreme Court nominee John Roberts and his comments about not recalling being a member of the Federalist Society:

"Why Supreme Court nominee John Roberts feels he has to lie about his membership in the Federalist Society is beyond me. Sure, they're an ultra conservative legal society, but why lie about membership? And if John Roberts will lie about something small like this, will he lie about much bigger things?"

I agree with the guy who responded to that post. He asked if the blogger was as critical of former President Bill Clinton for lying about the Monica affair. Strangely, the blogger and another Democratic Party operative commented that you can't compare the two cases.

The Democrats can't start arguing that they are the party of moral values if they can't even get that fact that a lie is a lie, regardless of who says it.

Does Alabama want any Moore?

Some friends and associates have commented on the recent political poll showing that the Alabama Republican leadership favor Governor Bob Riley (R-Alabama) over Roy Moore (?-Ten Commandments). The Birmingham News reported that

"Seventy-two percent of 160 Republican Executive Committee members who responded supported Riley; 21 percent supported Moore. The remainder either were
undecided or said a Riley-Moore matchup would amount to no choice at all."

This development is despite an earlier report that Moore was favored by the Republican rank-and-file.

If Moore decides to run for governor, rather than pursue other aspirations fueled by his apparent demagoguery, it will be interesting to see how his support holds up among mainstream Republicans compared to fundamentalist Christian Republicans.

I am inclined to think that, when voting time comes, Moore will have lost the support of many Republicans who agree with him that the Ten Commandments can be displayed in public buildings but who are concerned (to say the least) about his blatant disregard for the rule of law as evidenced by his defiance of the federal court's decision in his case.

Get'n schooled

It seems that Governor Riley (R-Alabama) must be a victim of a poorly-funded education system. And so the Legislature, it would seem, took it upon itself to educate him. In a very public manner.

On it's web site, the Legislature, in sharing Mr. Riley's proclamation calling its members into special session, decided to also bring to the public's attention that he didn't quite have his facts straight on how such a session works:

The Proclamation included in the foregoing link includes all language usage, as well as factual errors contained in the Governor's official Proclamation.

I'm wondering if this posting on the Legislature's web site is a pointed effort by Lt. Governor Lucy Baxley (D-Alabama) to inflict some revenge on Riley. If you'll recall, she got rather worked up over the governor's web site. As reported in the Decatur Daily:

In a possible warmup to the governor's race, Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley complained Thursday that Gov. Bob Riley's official Web site downplayed the importance of her office by listing it among the state's "cultural" agencies.

Of course, it's interesting that Baxley took the alleged slight personally, as if the office of lieutenant governor would exist if she were not there:

Alabama's first female lieutenant governor said she had spent years "working my way up to being a real role player in government, and I'm disappointed the governor doesn't recognize that."

Perhaps, though, the thought that the governor doesn't respect her work in state government is true, since she describes herself as being a "role player."

Those who can't do, teach

Secretary of State Nancy Worley (D-Alabama) announced on 27 May 2005 that she had selected Diebold, Inc., to provide Alabama it's new voter registration system. The system will connect all 67 counties with her office, which would be the new residence of the official list of registered voters for the entire state. Under the federal Help America Vote Act, this system is to be up and running by 1 January 2006.

Word under the capitol dome is that, despite making that announcement over two months ago and having only five months left to prepare and install the software and computer, no contract has been signed between the state and Diebold. This, despite a document from Diebold indicating that they would begin working on the project in mid-July.

Perhaps Worley was more prescient than she knew when she included in her comments that Alabama would have a modernized voter registration system

"[i]f we reach agreement with Diebold on the new statewide system ..."

The delay comes after Worley was criticized for dismissing the recommendation of an advisory committee regarding the selection of the new computer system. As the Decatur Daily reported:

"A 24-member advisory committee, which includes Democratic and Republican public officials as well as private citizens, spent more than a year in deliberations and unanimously recommended the partnership of ES&S and Unisys."

According to the Decatur Daily, State Representative Ken Guin (D-Carbon Hill) stated that

"... since Worley chose Diebold over the committee's wishes, she will get all the credit or all the blame, depending on how her selection turns out. "

Keeping Guin's comments in mind, I imagine that State Auditor Beth Chapman (R-Alabama) is watching these developments with interest. She has often been mentioned as the Republican favorite for challenging Worley in the 2006 election year.