Here’s hoping GOP makes a comeback

Some perspective: It may be an indication of how far your party has fallen from national significance when you find yourself (and your news channel) wildly celebrating an election victory in the New Jersey governor's race.

I hope the GOP can win some more Congressional seats in the next election, because one-party rule is never a good thing (especially with extremists like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in charge of Congress).

For an example of how damaging one-party rule can be, one need look back no farther than 2000 to 2005. The country is still trying to recover from that mess.

Conversely, one of the most prosperous periods in recent history was 1995 to 2000, with a moderate Democrat in the White House and Republican control of Congress. That period saw economic prosperity, unemployment below 5 percent, welfare reform, relative peace and surplus budgets. In fact, if the Clinton budget plan had been continued for the past 10 years, the federal debt would now be zero instead of $11.5 trillion.

Sept. 24

Prison settlement raises questions

Farron Barksdale obviously was a troubled young man. He had a history of paranoid schizophrenia and records indicate he suffered from delusions on the 2004 day he fatally shot two Athens police officers.

Doctors found Barksdale competent to stand trial. He pleaded guilty and deserved to spend the rest of his life in Kilby prison near Montgomery paying for the crimes.

One still wonders: If corrections employees did nothing wrong, why did the state finance department’s Division of Risk Management advise the Department of Corrections to pay Barksdale’s mother three-quarters of a million dollars to settle a wrongful death lawsuit she filed against the prison warden and its medical and mental-health providers?

Yes, Barksdale deserved to spend the rest of his life in prison paying for his crimes. He did not deserve, however, that “the rest of his life” would be about a week after arriving at Kilby.

Sept. 17

Racism debate is pointless waste of time

Much has been said and written in reaction to former President Jimmy Carter’s assertion earlier this week that some of the opposition to President Obama’s agenda stems from racism.

Many liberals have jumped on the bandwagon, (wrongly) asserting that anyone opposed to any Obama initiative must be racist.

Many conservatives are (rightly) offended by the liberals’ assertion, but then (wrongly) claim that racism plays no part in opposition to Obama’s presidency.

Mr. Carter’s is not an all-or-nothing observation.

The fact is there are still some racists in America. Some of them oppose President Obama’s agenda because he is black and they are not. Some racists will go so far as to deny that he is black, because his mother was white. And some will support anything Obama says because he is black, as they are.

The problem with this whole discussion of racism is the same as the inordinate amount of media attention given to Tea Parties, where assertions that Obama is a communist, the antichrist, a Muslim terrorist or was not born in the United States are given credibility.

They pay too much attention to a vocal minority and ignore the central issues.

Certainly, there are conservatives (including some Tea Partiers) who have legitimate concerns about the specifics of proposed health care reform, budget deficits, national debt and the president’s policies. That does not make them racist. Similarly, there are liberals who believe no one should die because he doesn’t have access to a doctor, no one should go broke because he gets sick and government has a responsibility to promote the general welfare. That does not make them communists.

Last November, Barack Obama was elected president due in large part to the fact that more people who voted believe health care in America is broken needs reform. I suspect those people are still in the majority, but the discussion has moved way off point.

Let’s ignore the character assassination, the shouts of “Hitler” and “racist,” and instead talk about the nuts and bolts of specific policy proposals and their potential ramifications for real people in the real world.

Name-calling by both extremes does nothing to advance the discussion and serves only to push the already divided poles farther apart, when the goal should be to debate the issues and achieve consensus on what will work best for the American people.

Sept. 15

Breaking the law is breaking the law

Morgan County Coroner Russ Beard is probably pretty good at his job. Otherwise, voters would have sacked him in the last election.

But that doesn’t change the fact that Beard is in violation of state law that requires him to live in the county in which he was elected. Beard did not help his own cause when he said he could not find a single place to live in all of Morgan County. And other Morgan County officials noted in the story that he drives a county-owned car and county taxpayers pay for his gasoline.

The stories can be found here, here, and here, and an editorial is here.

It was unfortunate that Beard was in a traffic accident with injuries on the same day that a story about his out-of-county residence was published. We routinely report on accidents with injuries. Should we have ignored this one just because Beard was involved?

It was even more unfortunate that the car he was driving belonged to a female acquaintance who lives in the same Madison County apartment complex as Beard. The ownership of the vehicle involved was obviously newsworthy considering Beard usually drives a county-owned vehicle.

The series of stories about Beard has spawned a minor industry of righteously indignant posts in the comments sections of The Daily’s Web site.

A few examples:

“Leave him alone. Gossip, gossip, gossip. Who cares? Write about more news worthy things.”

“… the Decatur Daily is looking more and more like the National Enquirer every day. …”

and

“The Daily's reader's aren't well served by this kind of thing.”

However, others — albeit a minority of those expressing opinions — see the stories differently. One example:

“Will we change the laws to suit each office holder? Thank you, DD, for printing this information. I believe your readers ARE served by getting the truth.”

I guess the only thing we can conclude from all this is that, if you are a friend of a public official who is violating state law, you believe the truth should be ignored.

That is not, however, the way we see it here.

The first story was prompted by Beard’s blatant disregard for state law. The second was a traffic accident with injuries: something we routinely report regardless of who is involved. The third story was the result of police finally releasing a report of the accident details.

That’s just good, basic journalism. No apology needed.

One more comment under the Beard stories deserves mention:

“Daily... When are you going to investigate the residence of Billy Jackson. His son is now at his third school in 3 years and the latest is out-of-district. Please follow him and his wife around to find out if they are breaking any laws. The problem most people have with your "investigative journalism" is that it is biased in who you go after. Only going after Republican office-holders really makes your readers suspect of the job you are doing.”

For the record, The Daily has looked into Billy Jackson’s residence and he is not in violation of the law. He lives in the district he was elected to represent and serve.

Sept 10

How can you judge if you don’t first listen?

It’s getting curiouser and curiouser.

Wednesday night, President Barack Obama addressed a joint session of Congress and the American people about the need for health insurance reform.

This morning, I have read at least a dozen comments on The Daily’s Web site as well as on social networking sites from people who obviously did not listen to the speech.

It is everyone’s right to either pay attention to or ignore the president. But why do people need to chip in their two-cents worth — and expect others to give it any weight — when they don’t bother to keep up with the discussion?

For the record: President Obama said a public health insurance option is a means to an end (affordability) and he is willing to listen to anyone with alternative plans to achieve that end; he said he is willing to consider tort reform as a way of controlling health care costs; and his door is open to anyone with ideas for insurance reform. Pssst … for those of you who weren’t listening, just so you’ll know: Those are the things your “side” has been asking for.

Yet, people keep returning to the same discredited arguments about death panels and socialism. I’m beginning to think they are getting their “ideas” from talking heads rather than listening and thinking for themselves.

How do I know some people don’t follow the dialogue?

Because they say so, right there in the middle of their comments. And they seem to be quite proud of their self-imposed ignorance. For example, Thomas E. from Hartselle posted this on The Daily Web site:

”My kids are still in school and they have enough wisdom not to listen to or believe anything Obama has to say. We have a race at my house to see who can change the channel first if Obama shows his face on the news.”

That’s fine. Thomas has a right to raise his children as he thinks best.

What he and many others who tune out President Obama don’t have a right to do, however, is make judgments about the president and expect anyone to give them credence. By definition, you can't make informed decisions without first getting information.

I know, I know. I have heard from several folks who “just know” the president hates America and is evil. He will destroy this great country.

Fortunately, those ignorant folks are still in the minority in America.

Sept. 9

Politics has become a game everbody loses

It is a shame it has come to this.

Name-calling, fabricating and nay-saying have replaced constructive criticism and discussion of policy.

I believe our nation has become great due in large part to the healthy exchange of differing ideas and opinions — the examination of our policies and subsequent revisions, when needed.

Unfortunately, the conversation has turned into a shouting match. Name-calling and prevaricating have replaced the give and take of ideas.

Not only is this bad for the nation’s morale, it diminishes the value of real debate in a democracy.

Some attribute the bitterness to racism. Others say it is the result of a frustrated minority party that can’t find a leader to rally behind.

Perhaps the real cause is a politics of fear, which preys on the ignorance that comes from getting the “facts” from a single-minded, biased source. There are plenty of those propaganda outlets available on both ends of the political spectrum.

When Republicans equate a message of personal responsibility and hard work with “socialist indoctrination” …

When Democrats insist government intervention is the only way to fix a broken health care system rather than seeing a public option as one of several possible means to achieve an end …

When people begin arguing against their own self-interest because they mimic what some talking head on radio or television said rather than thinking for themselves …

When people quit listening to each other and only shout …

Nothing good is likely to result.

The policy debate has been transformed into a political game where winning at all costs — damn the repercussions — trumps actual progress and prosperity.

Sadly, all the American people lose as a result.

Aug. 18

Health care broken; let’s fix it

Can we find some common ground to begin this discussion? How about: The health-care system in this country is broken.

I believe costs are increasing at unsustainable rates and too many folks do not have access to basic care.

A couple of personal observations.

I recently visited one of the local emergency rooms. The care I received was outstanding. The health professionals were not only professional, but also kind and good-humored.

I received the bill for the physician’s portion of my care. It was $1,000. Because I have excellent insurance, I will pay $25. The insurance company pays $200. The rest is "discounted."

The physicians billed $1,000, but accept $225 as payment in full.

A couple of questions: Are people who are without insurance expected to pay the full $1,000, or do they get the $775 discount, too? And more to the point, what was the actual cost of the care I received?

Second personal story: I went to a local dermatologist a couple of years ago (for a routine examination), but forgot my insurance card. Her schedule was tight and I didn’t have time to go home and retrieve it. I offered to pay cash in advance and hope for reimbursement from my insurance company. The doctor’s receptionist refused to treat me without my insurance card.

There is something wrong with not being able to pay cash in advance for services.

My point, I guess, is that the system is so complicated as to be absurd. Nobody really knows the cost of care. But the providers are encouraged to over-bill so that they can collect the maximum for their services.

The system is broken. More than 45 million Americans have no access to insurance, and thus no access to primary care.

Let’s start there. …

Aug. 11

Town hall meetings for 2-way communication

Town hall meetings, it seems to me, have two purposes. They allow voters to give lawmakers their opinions on specific issues and they give legislators an opportunity to tell their constituents what is going on in Washington.

Health care reform has prompted more voters to turn out at town hall meetings than perhaps any issue in the past decade. Opponents, especially, have shown up and vehemently expressed their opinions about current proposals. In many cases, the shouting has prevented any discussion of the topic. In some cases, the meetings have ended with violence and/or the lawmaker being escorted from the building for his or her safety.

It is a good sign that many voters are becoming active in government decisions. The passion with which many participate at town hall meetings is also a positive. Voter apathy has been on the rise for the past 20 years. Perhaps the tide is turning.

Shouting one’s opinion at a town hall meeting, however, without regard for others’ interests, is detrimental to democracy and our nation. It is OK to shout. But, once one’s opinion has been expressed, it is time to allow someone else to speak. Dialogue is always preferable on important issues.

Increasingly, it is the lawmakers who have been silenced by the vocal minority at recent town halls.

That prevents the lawmakers from educating constituents about the details of current proposals.

A recent national poll reported that 65 percent of those who were asked about “President Barack Obama’s health care proposals” responded that they were opposed, but more than 65 percent of those same respondents, when told of the specifics of the plan (but not that they were part of the president’s proposal), were in favor of the changes.

Clearly, the administration and others pushing health care reform are not doing a good job letting voters know the specifics of their plans. Town hall meetings would seem to be an ideal place to get that information out.

Perhaps that explains the strategy being utilized by reform opponents.

July 11

U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions’ opening remarks at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor are indicative of the problems the Republican Party faces.

Sessions’ statement was, in a nutshell, if you don’t think and act like a white male, you are out of the mainstream.

While that political philosophy has worked well for the GOP for decades, it is no longer effective in the era of Obama.

The truth is white males have dominated American society for more than 200 years. A message of “be like me” has resonated well at the polls.

But the American electorate is increasingly diverse. And even straight white men are rejecting the idea that elected officials should be “just like me.”

Even a straight white man like myself sees the advantages of multiple points of view. Each of us is shaped by our personal experiences; a woman’s perspective, or a gay person’s viewpoint, or a black man’s, or a Latina’s provide diversity and a broader representation of America.

While I have no idea what it is like to grow up poor and hungry (nor does Sessions), poverty is a real problem today. Who better to deal with those problems than someone who has “been there, done that”?

Sessions’ said Sotomayor is outside the mainstream.

Maybe the senator from Mobile should take a close look in the mirror. Voters (at least those outside the South) have moved beyond the need for representatives who are just like them.

June 30

After a protracted, contested election, Al Franken of “Saturday Night Live” fame is the newest member of the United States Senate.

Republican Norm Coleman conceded to Democrat Franken in Minnesota’s contested Senate race on Tuesday, hours after a unanimous state Supreme Court ruled the former “Saturday Night Live” comedian should be certified the winner.

Coleman announced his decision at a news conference in St. Paul, bringing an end to a nearly eight-month recount and court fight over an election decided by only a few hundred votes, The Associated Press reports.

Just minutes after the Daily posted the news on its Web site, one commenter, identifying him- or herself as “typical white person from,” asked, “What has happened to this Great Country?”

While it is somewhat strange that a man known best as a comedian can get elected to the most exclusive political club in the nation, it is not necessarily the end of the world. Nor is it necessarily a bad thing.

If “typical white person from” knew anything about Franken — or about Minnesota — he or she would know that the comedian attended Harvard, graduated cum laude with a degree in political science, has received awards from the USO for his continuing volunteer work taking his show to troops stationed overseas, including in war zones, and to wounded soldiers, and was a close friend of Sen. Paul Wellstone until his death in a plane crash.

In other words, Franken is no political neophyte.

And as for Minnesota: Can anyone be surprised at a decision by voters who elected a former professional wrestler as governor in 1998?

Perhaps “typical white person from” is aware of all this. Maybe his or her comment was directed at the fact that Franken’s politics lean toward the left. After all, the senator-elect's books include one titled "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" and another called "Lies and the Liars who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right."

If that’s the case, then maybe Franken’s election is a reflection of voters’ frustration with conservative policies.

June 18

Five months in, I'm still waiting for the "erosion of our hard-earned freedoms" and "the end of our great country as we know it."

Conservative columnists in The Daily and other news outlets have been warning for more than a year now that Barack Obama will destroy America. Just you wait and see, they say.

I understand those who oppose the president's policies wanting to express their views. Dissent is an important component to a successful, thriving democracy.

But I am wondering when this disaster is going to come about. I keep reading about the doom we are all certain to suffer because Obama actually hates America. It's just right around the corner, the fear-mongerers and nay-sayers keep telling us.

Those Obama critics are putting their eggs in a pretty precarious basket. They are betting on failure and suffering for the American people just so they can say, "I told you so."

It is a no-win situation because, if they are right, the whole country suffers. If they are wrong and America survives this dark period of left-of-center moderate policies, what credibility will the critics have left?

It seems to me that the country has actually moved toward a little more prosperity and success in spite of the policies designed to intentionally destroy it.

What will the conservative columnists say if the country actually survives or gasp thrives under an Obama administration?

And exactly when will the predictions of doom and gloom end?

June 16

Have we lost perspective on Solutia deal?

Morgan County Schools Superintendent Bob Balch and others are unhappy with a tax lawsuit settlement that requires the county to repay Solutia Inc.'s local successor about $617,000 that the company overpaid in sales taxes during a nine-year period.

"I don’t think I appreciate anyone who wants to take money from our schools," Balch told The Daily.

St. Louis-based Solutia, which spun off the local nylon plant as part of its bankruptcy, discovered it had overpaid taxes to Morgan County, which passed the revenue along to the county's three school systems and its volunteer fire departments' association.

While it is easy to understand Balch's frustration during this time of proration of state funds, it is difficult to justify his anger or indignation.

After all, Solutia overpaid its taxes. The county has been spending money that rightfully belongs in the company's coffers for the past nine years. Regardless of how Balch spins the situation, nobody is "tak(ing) money from our schools."

In fact, the county has been taking Solutia's money.

For the record, county schools will receive $410,122 less in taxes this year in order to repay the debt to Solutia. That is about the equivalent of five teaching positions.

June 3

Can your beverage preference determine your political persuasion?

Is it just me or has the political rhetoric gone beyond extreme and into the realm of the absurd?

Several recent examples come to mind.

In today’s Daily, for example, Greenville businessman Tim James, a candidate for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in 2010, conjures up the spectre of Adolph Hitler when referring to the “socialist agenda” of the Obama administration.

“I think this administration is threatening the very fabric of this country,” James, 46, the son of former Alabama two-term Gov. Fob James Jr., said Tuesday in Moulton at a meeting of the Lawrence County Republican Party.

A “shocked” James said he would not have believed anyone if they told him a year ago that the U.S. would own 80 percent of AIG.

The problem for James and so many others on the extreme right is that most Americans have not forgotten that the federal bailout and subsequent acquisition of American International Group occurred during the presidency of his fellow Republican George W. Bush. Furthermore, most have not forgotten that the deepest recession since the 1930s began during the seventh year of the Bush administration — too late to blame Bill Clinton and impossible to pin on President Barack Obama.

But James seems mild-mannered compared to the rants of others on the extreme right, who seem to get louder as the economy shows signs of recovery.

A friend, who until Tuesday had been quite mum about his political leanings, posted a rant on Facebook at about 1:30 this morning that would make an autoworker blush.

“You guys have absolutely no idea the “change” for which you voted. We are flying straight into the face of the American Revolution. REAL patriots who will not tolerate this Socialist regime, and who rise up against it, will be branded "terrorists". And we will be detained as such. So if you truly love America, then put down your (Third Commandment violating expletive deleted) lattes, grow a pair, and lets restore this nation to greatness!”

The hatred and extreme confidence with which he writes off all others who do not see things his way cannot be easily dismissed.

First, he is able to read minds and tell us that we don’t know what we were voting for. Then he predicts the future with the certainty of a prophet, drawing on paranoia and fear (two weapons the far right has utilized effectively lately) to stir up feelings of martyrdom. He appeals to “real patriots” and those who “truly love America,” as if only those who adhere to his personal political philosophy could possibly love this country. And he uses a Commandment-violating profanity to refer to a hot beverage.

The latté metaphor is one that has grown in popularity among the far right in the past year, and I can’t figure out why it has grown so prominent other than the fact that it is used by Rush Limaugh, Sean Hannity and other spewers of hate.

Think about it for a moment: Can a person’s beverage preference really accurately indicate how patriotic he or she is, or be some kind of badge of (lack of) manhood? Can we really paint with such a broad brush?

Yes, I understand the latté metaphor implies the converse; that those who have a different political philosophy from us are somehow distracted and not paying attention.

I wonder how many who repeat the phrase “latté-drinking (insert your favorite slur here)” actually have any idea what they are saying and how many are just mindlessly repeating what they hear.

An observation: Such references tell much more about the person making the comment than the person he or she intends to insult. Either the commenter does not understand the metaphor and is mindlessly repeating a nonsensical phrase he has heard, else he does understand it and is so self-centered as to believe only he (and like-minded fellows) can see what is actually happening in the world.

Finally, the gubernatorial candidacy of former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore will provide an interesting challenge to the rhetoric from the right.

How, for example, will Moore’s conservative supporters continue to insist that “activist judges” who “rule from personal belief rather than the law” will be the downfall of our nation? After all, it was Judge Moore who refused to obey a court order to remove his monument from the state Judicial Building because it was an unconstitutional display.

I suppose it is OK for judges to be activists and re-interpret the Constitution as long as it fits conservative dogma.

May27

Alabama Gov. Bob Riley is an optimist.

Speaking with The Daily’s editorial board Wednesday afternoon, it was obvious the Republican former congressman from Clay County is proud of the advances in education and economic development during his tenure.

And while Riley does not hesitate to gripe about politics in Montgomery and Washington, D.C., hampering his ability to shape his vision, Riley believes the best days for Alabama are in the not-too-distant future.

He speaks with passion about the potential of the Shoals area, or about the possibility that Huntsville can once again become the center of American space exploration as NASA moves beyond its space shuttle phase and back into lunar and planetary missions. He believes Alabama could be in the forefront of so-called "green technologies," speaking of specific industrial prospects.

And Riley constantly returns to the state’s advances in education.

Term limits preclude Riley, 64, from seeking a third term as governor in 2010. He is coy about his plans, but is obviously passionate about the state’s future.

"I have no idea what I will do," he said, adding that "life’s too short" to consider a return to Washington as either a congressman or senator.

Alabama has moved forward dramatically during Riley’s tenure as governor. One can’t help but anticipate Riley will continue to be an integral part of shaping of the state’s fortunes after he leaves the governor’s office.

May26

President Barack Obama on Tuesday chose federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor to be the first Hispanic justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, championing her as a compassionate, seasoned jurist whose against-the-odds life journey affirms the American dream.

Sotomayor is the daughter of poor Puerto Rican immigrants. She grew up in public housing in South Bronx, was educated at Princeton and Yale, became a successful attorney in both private and public practice and was eventually appointed to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush.

Not surprisingly, the announcement of Sotomayor’s nomination prompted an outcry from the spokesman for the far right wing of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, who first called her “a racist,” then tempered the characterization by calling her a “reverse racist.”

Limbaugh’s denunciation stems from a ruling Sotomayor made last year as an appellate judge, when she sided with the city of New Haven, Conn., in a discrimination case brought by white firefighters. The city threw out results of a promotion exam because too few minorities scored high enough.

Other conservatives point to a Sotomayor speech nearly 10 years ago in which she said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.” Her point, in context, is that a Latina woman with her experiences would be more familiar with some circumstances than a white man without those experiences. Similarly, she would agree, a white man would be more familiar with a different set of circumstances than would a Latina woman.

The question then becomes: Are there enough wealthy white men on the court? Do we have a representative sample of the privileged class? Or do we need another?

Regardless of the relative merits of the New Haven case, or Sotomayor’s personal views as a member of a minority, radical Republicans should remember their lofty ideals about colorblindness, the value of hard work and the ability of every American to rise above their stature to greatness.

First they denounced Barack Obama. Now they are attacking Sotomayor. Both are examples of the humble-beginnings-to-success story the GOP loves to trumpet as the American ideal.

It makes one wonder if they really believe what they purport.

May 22

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said today she won't talk any more about her charge that the CIA lied in 2002 about using waterboarding on terrorism suspects, according to The Associated Press.

"I have made the statement that I'm going to make on this," she told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference. "I don't have anything more to say about it. I stand by my comment."

But Republicans aren't letting this one slide.

Ken Spain, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, issued a statement after the news conference calling Pelosi a political liability to the Democratic party.

"Her obsession with the previous administration and her disdain for America's intelligence officials has reduced her to cheerleader status within the far left wing of her party and a distraction to the substantive debate over how to best move our economy forward," said Spain.

Perhaps the first time in several years I agree 100 percent with any spokeman for the NRCC.

May 14

President Barack Obama will deliver the commencement address at Notre Dame University on Sunday, and the campus and community are conflicted.

According to NPR, campus groups and organizations in the surrounding community of South Bend are divided about the propriety of an abortion-rights president speaking, and being given an honorary degree, by a Catholic institution.

NPR reports that a small plane has been flying low over the campus in recent days, pulling a banner with a picture of an aborted fetus. A controversial pro-life activist arrived in South Bend weeks ago and has promised to “make a circus” out of Sunday’s ceremony. Some have called for university president John Jenkins to resign.

But others, including 23 student groups, have sent letters to Jenkins supporting the decision to invite Obama.

This is what happens when churches allow partisan politics to dominate their activities and when voters make decisions based on a single issue. I suspect the outrage is motivated more by partisan politics than by any sincere desire to change hearts and minds. After all, then-President George W. Bush was commencement speaker at Notre Dame in 2001. Mr. Bush was a strong proponent of the death penalty, which the Catholic church opposes. Were these same people outraged at that invitation?

How do those protesting Obama’s appearance at Notre dame feel about unjustified war? Torture? Access to health care? Defeating the Taliban? Improving military pay and benefits? Protecting the environment? Breaking our dependency on foreign energy sources? Genocide in Darfur? Or any of the thousands of issues facing Americans today?

Don’t get me wrong: I am all for recognizing the right of folks on both sides of the abortion debate to voice their opinions. And our Constitution allows every citizen to vote, whether educated on many issues, just one or none.

But why is it so many folks are determined to squelch the speech of others who have opposing views? Yes, abortion is a divisive issue and evokes strong feelings from those who believe it is wrong in all instances, from those who tolerate the procedure when pregnancy threatens the health of the mother and from those who believe a woman should be able to do with her body whatever she chooses. Obama acknowledged that very divide during the Saddleback Forum during the presidential campaign. He also famously (or infamously if you take his comment out of context) said it was above his pay grade to decide when life begins. In other words, there are some things that remain a mystery to scientists and only the Almighty knows. How refreshing for a politician — or anyone these days — to acknowledge that opinions other than his own are just as valid and worthy of consideration.

At Saddleback, Obama said we need to seek some common ground on the abortion issue. Sunday’s commencement at Notre Dame may be just the opportunity and venue for him to plant that seed of cooperation.

He can only do that, however, if all sides are listening.

May 5

As if President Barack Obama didn’t already have enough on his plate (two wars, a stagnant economy and massive unemployment, the threat of a potential swine flu pandemic), he now faces the responsibility to make the first of what could be several U.S. Supreme Court nominations.

Justice David Souter, selected by President George H.W. Bush in 1990, announced last week he is retiring at the end of the high court’s current term in June.

Supreme Court nominations are among the most important and lasting decisions an American president makes. And in this age of extreme political polarization, they draw the most ire.

Conservatives like to characterize judges who generally support individual rights as “activists” who “legislate from the bench.”

But nowhere is such judicial activism more apparent than last term’s decision by the court’s conservative majority to ignore the first few words of the Second Amendment (“A well regulated militia …”).

President George W. Bush’s appointments of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito ensure that conservatives will dominate the court for the foreseeable future.

Pundits are speculating about who President Obama will select. Some say a woman (now that Sandra Day O’Connor is retired, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the lone female on the court). Some say Obama will select an African-American or Hispanic to bolster minority representation. Conservatives are certain he will choose a justice with a pro-choice history. (Of course, I’ve heard many on the far right assert that Obama will destroy America; that he will take away the right to own a weapon; and that his aim is communism. We shall see.)

I’m going out on a limb here, but I predict Obama — himself a Constitutional Law professor — will select his nominee based on experience and qualifications. The nominee will most likely be a moderate liberal like the president himself.

Republicans are gearing up for a Senate battle and have tapped Sen. Jeff Sessions of Mobile to lead the ideological fight.

Of course, with Democrats looking at a possible filibuster-proof majority in the Senate by the time a vote comes around in late summer or early fall, that fight may be nothing more than symbolic.

April 28

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., one of the most senior Republicans in the Senate, became the newest Senate Democrat on Tuesday when he switched parties.

Specter said the GOP has "moved far to the right" since he was first elected in 1980.

While Specter has a history of voting his conscience rather than along party lines, his switch could be detrimental to the federal government and, thus, the American public.

With Specter's crossover, the Democrats would have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate if Al Franken's contested election result holds up.

Add to that the Democrats' overwhelming majority in the House and you have a potential recipe for disaster.

Unchecked party control of the federal government has a tendency to result in extreme swings in policy that just aren't good for the American people. One need not look back far into history to observe the phenomenon. And with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in charge, things could quickly get out of control.

Let's hope the moderate Democrat in the White House will be able to keep the extreme factions of his party under control.

April 24

The United States government spent millions of dollars to investigate sex in the Oval Office, but it would be a "witch hunt" to look into who OK'd U.S. torture of prisoners?

Absurd.

I personally believe we need to move forward, albeit with assurances that it (torture) will never happen again.

But those who, 10 years ago, thought it in the nation's vital interest to appoint an independent counsel to look into President Bill Clinton's extramarital affairs have no credibility when they say today that an investigation into who authorized U.S. torture of prisoners would be a "witch hunt."

April 22

Scripps Howard News Service columnist Cliff May, who is president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism, is among the growing number of conservative columnists rationalizing the U.S. government’s use of torture — quaintly referred to as “enhanced interrogation techniques” — on terror suspects. His column Wednesday can be found here.

Mr. May:

First, let me say I enjoy reading your column. Although I find myself more often than not disagreeing with your opinions — or even the premises on which those opinions are based — I find it educational to discover others' perspectives on important issues.

However, I find the name of the organization for which you serve as president quite ironic since you so blatantly disregard and actually demean many of the foundations upon which our great democracy is built.

For example: In your April 22 column, the first sentence states Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind behind the Sept. 11 terrorist atrocities.

While we can quibble about whether simulated drowning constitutes torture or whether such enhanced interrogation techniques actually produce useful intelligence; and we can argue until the cows come in about the ethics of using such techniques (although criminalizing such actions cannot be "appallingly unethical" as you assert in your column, perhaps you need to look up "unethical"); there are two points I would like to make about your column that are indisputable (and a third which I would ask you to consider).

1) Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was never tried as the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks.

One of the reasons America has been the bright shining beacon on the hill is because our system of justice is based on due process. I imagine there is a wealth of credible intelligence supporting your assertion (and the incredible evidence of the testimony of Abu Zubaydah, himself a "terrorist" by your definition). But I, for one, am unwilling to take the government's word about who is a terrorist and who is not without some kind of proof presented in an open forum. To do so begs for dictatorship.

What about the possibility that we use these atrocities against innocent men and women? Did not the Bush administration assert Zubaydah was al-Qaida's chief of operations? In fact he was not. Without due process, what prevents the government from asserting the same about you or me (and then making us submit to the "few nights of sleep deprivation" or "scaring with caterpillars" you cite)? I bet those dogs would look nothing like caterpillars to you under such circumstances. And I wonder what falsehoods you would not be willing to tell the government in order to stop drowning.

2) Your column misleadingly states, in an attempt to justify EITs: "In the end, (Zubaydah) provided the intelligence used to capture KSM." But Zubaydah gave up KSM before the enhanced interrogation techniques were used on him, according to the memos you cite. In fact, the intelligence community spent hundreds of hours and millions of dollars chasing false alarms produced by the use of EITs on Zubaydah. The only useful intelligence provided by Zubaydah was before he was tortured.

Finally, something to ponder.

There are reasons (we can argue their relative merits elsewhere) why "terrorists" hate the United States. These are thinking, breathing human beings. Many are brainwashed or taught from early childhood (just as many of our children are now being taught to hate all Muslims).

Is it possible one of the root causes of this hatred (and the resulting terrorism) is that we torture people without due process, without requiring anything more than the whim of some government bureaucrat?

I'm just asking.

April 21

Alabama Attorney General Troy King said last week a complaint from the president of the Alabama State Bar about ads and phone calls used in last year’s contentious race for the state Supreme Court does not warrant prosecution.

Among the complaints lodged by the bar association was this: A political action committee appeared to be behind automated phone calls that incorrectly told voters one of the candidates had received an “F” rating from the state bar. The statewide lawyers’ organization doesn’t rate judges.

How you feel about that particular campaign tactic probably depends more on your partisan affiliation than on your tolerance of intentional misinformation dissemination. For example, if the candidate being gored is the Republican judge, and you are a Republican, you might be outraged (and rightly so). If you are a Democrat, on the other hand, you might snicker and justify the shenanigans by rationalizing that the GOP has done the same in the past.

In actuality, the candidate about whom the deceptive robocalls were made was Democrat Deborah Bell Paseur, who lost the election.

”Wouldn’t you know it,” Mr. or Ms. Democrat is now thinking. “Troy King would have pursued the case if the misleading calls would have disparaged the Republican.”

But the reason Mr. King did not pursue the case is that, in Alabama, there is no way to be certain exactly who was responsible for the automated telephone calls. That’s because the state allows transfers of funds between and among political action committees.

It is a shell game that allows special interests to hide where they put their money and, more alarmingly, allows politicians to conceal the identities of those to whom they are beholden. And that is unacceptable.

Don’t get me wrong. I am all for folks’ right to donate to candidates. McCain-Feingold, which was intended to regulate campaign finance on the federal level, is probably unconstitutional and certainly has resulted in the proliferation of 527 organizations and, thus, less accountability.

But I am also a strong believer that voters have the right to know who donates to their elected representatives. Not that there is anything wrong with receiving campaign funds, per se. But if the donation buys influence (and why else would a special interest donate to a candidate?), I want to know it. If a legislator consistently votes in favor of telecommunications deregulation, for example, resulting in skyrocketing costs to ratepayers (read: you and me), I would like to know if (read: how much) he or she received from BellSouth, for example.

Unfortunately, we can’t track the money in Alabama. One PAC sends funds to another PAC, which transfers money to yet another PAC, which donates to an individual candidate (or funds misleading robocalls, for example).

On the same day the story above broke (about Mr. King’s investigation of the state Supreme Court race), another story appeared in The Daily about the lack of a quorum at a Senate committee meeting to consider a bill by state Sen. Arthur Orr, R-Decatur, banning the movement of money between PACs. Sen. Orr has introduced similar legislation three years in a row, and it has failed to get out of committee each year. This year, the senators just didn't bother to show up to hear it.

Every year voters are outraged that the politicians in Montgomery continue to hide behind the shell game of PAC-to-PAC transfers. And every year voters vow to make them pay in the next election.

Can we please make good on that promise next time?

April 15

It's tax day, and I just returned from dropping a 5-figure check at the post office.

That check, combined with the amount Uncle Sam already withheld from my household's income, brings our family's federal tax liability for 2008 to six figures.

Unlike many folks, however, I am not indignant about the annual bleeding of our checking account. I'm not complaining or cursing. I'm not dumping tea into the Tennessee River.

I realize how blessed our family is to have that amount of resources. Yes, we have two kids in college and a mortgage and payments (and insurance) on four vehicles. But many folks struggle just to put food on the table or to afford medicine for their sick children. It helps to think about future improvements to schools or roads, or the brave men and women defending our country abroad, when writing that check to the Internal Revenue Service of the U.S. Treasury Department.

When it comes to paying taxes, I prefer to dwell on the positive that can be accomplished for others rather than moaning and groaning about its effect on me.

Unlike a lot of people, I don't believe government programs are designed to keep people dependent on government. I truly believe government programs are important to help the least fortunate improve their condition. Nor do I buy into the "trickle-down" rhetoric that the top 5 percent of income earners create wealth and drive the economy while the rest do their best to derail it. I believe that, in our capitalistic system, entrepreneurs need workers to get their products to the marketplace just as workers need entrepreneurs to provide jobs and income so they can buy goods and services in the marketplace. Neither segment of the economy could succeed without the other.

Of course, it helps that my meager wages make up only a tiny fraction of our family's income. In fact, my total annual income covers less than a third of our federal income-tax liability.

My wife and I decided 15 years ago to take a path that would lead toward her career goals rather than mine, and it has proven to have been a wise decision. She is now a successful manager at a multibillion-dollar company, while I am an inky wretch. Every few years, she gets promotions and we move to another community. She takes on more work and greater responsibility while I begin at the bottom of the seniority ladder at yet another newspaper.

That means she is doing the vast majority of the heavy lifting. I am here to encourage her and take on some duties traditionally the responsibility of the wife, like cooking and ironing, but she carries most of the burden.

That is why, I suspect, she will at some point today be dumping her leftover unsweet iced tea on the ground and cursing under her breath.

By putting up with me for more than 20 years, she has earned that right.

April 14

Decatur's "Trial of the Century" got under way for the third time this week. Let's hope justice is served this time.

Of course, just what constitutes "justice" is yet to be determined by the legal system. But that doesn't stop folks from weighing in. Gun control and same-sex marriage are polarizing issues, but even they don't evoke the kind of emotional outrage the public demonstrates at the mention of the trial(s) of Daniel Wade Moore in the brutal March 12, 1999, murder of Karen Tipton.

Whether you believe Moore or someone else killed Karen Tipton, chances are you are firm in your opinion and have little patience for those whose opinions differ. Many, many folks around here are as certain of Moore's guilt (or innocence) as they are of their own names.

A jury convicted Moore of the crime during his first trial in November 2002 and recommended life in prison. Circuit Judge Glenn Thompson, however, sentenced Moore to the death penalty.

Thompson later overturned the conviction and sentence and ordered a new trial because, he ruled, prosecutors withheld evidence from the defense. Last year, a hopelessly deadlocked jury in the second trial resulted in a mistrial. Moore has been free on bond for nearly a year (and has yet to "kill again," as so many were certain would happen when he posted bond).

Which leads us to the present.

Jurors are now being selected. A defense motion to dismiss is now pending because still more evidence was recently discovered and Circuit Judge Steve Haddock, who is now presiding, believes the prosecution willfully and intentionally withheld it from the defense.

After two trials, many of the facts are known. Karen Tipton, then 39, was found brutally murdered in her Decatur home in March 1999. Her husband, Dr. David Tipton, discovered the body. Police developed Moore, then a crack cocaine addict, as a suspect. He told a relative he had been to the Tipton home with friends, then recanted the statement. A pubic hair that is effectively a match for Moore was found in the Tipton home.

While much circumstantial evidence points to Moore, no definitive proof has been presented. While the pubic hair, if not planted by police (and I am not one who generally believes in conspiracy theories or lacks faith in law officers) probably puts Moore in the home at some point, it is far from proof that he murdered Karen Tipton. It is not even "proof" he was in the Tipton home (although we know he was there at least once for his employer to work on the alarm system). It is possible the hair was transferred to another person or object elsewhere (during sex, for example) and then carried to the Tipton's home. The lack of Moore's bloody foot-, hand- or fingerprints at the scene would support such a theory.

It is more likely that the hair came directly from Moore while at the Tipton's house. But being there does not make Moore the killer. That the hair "proves" Moore committed the crime is a huge leap of faith I would be unwilling to take with a man's life at stake. Others have a different, equally valid, view.

Local residents point to many other factors either supporting the case against Moore or throwing suspicion elsewhere. Conflicting witness statements about the last time they saw Karen Tipton and where; about when Dr. Tipton arrived at home; about computer files and images; and about rumored drug use by several of the parties seem inconsistent and unreliable. Daily reporter Sheryl Marsh, who has followed the case from the start, describes the case as a "web of confusion." That sums up the circumstances pretty accurately.

The fact that Moore supporters claim Sheryl is biased for the prosecution while supporters of the case against Moore claim she is biased against the prosecution is a pretty good indication that she is more objective than most observers.

The third trial — if the charges are not dismissed — will again boil down to how much evidence a jury believes it takes to overcome the defendant's presumed innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Assistant Attorney General Don Valeska has said he will try the case until justice prevails. But if a third trial fails to convict Moore, now 35, Valeska should begin searching elsewhere for Karen Tipton's murderer.

It has been more than 10 years. That is too long both for the Tipton family and for Daniel Wade Moore.

April 13

Reaction from indignant pirates in the wake of the U.S. Navy's dramatic rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips off the African coast Sunday night is perplexing, to say the least.

"From now on, if we capture foreign ships and their respective countries try to attack us, we will kill them (the hostages)," Jamac Habeb, a 30-year-old pirate, told The Associated Press from one of Somalia’s piracy hubs, Eyl. "(U.S. forces have) become our No. 1 enemy."

"Every country will be treated the way it treats us. In the future, America will be the one mourning and crying," Abdullahi Lami, one of the pirates holding a Greek ship anchored in the Somali town of Gaan, told The Associated Press on Monday. "We will retaliate (for) the killings of our men."

The pirates' righteous indignation would be impressive but for one little fact they hope the rest of the world overlooks.

They are pirates. They are committing crimes in international shipping lanes.

Surely global sentiment will not favor them … .

April 10

A Boston hospital has performed the nation’s second face transplant on a man who suffered traumatic facial injuries from a fall, The Associated Press reports this morning.

A hospital spokesman said the 17-hour operation took place Thursday at Harvard-affiliated Brigham and Women’s Hospital. A team led by plastic surgeon Dr. Bohdan Pomahac replaced the man’s nose, palate, upper lip, and some skin, muscles and nerves with those of a dead donor.

The hospital plans a news conference this afternoon.

This story raises several ethical issues. For example: Must one have suffered traumatic facial injuries to be eligible for this procedure?

I’m sure my wife and would love for me to undergo a similar operation if I could get George Clooney to be the donor.

April 9

I’ve seen fire and I’ve seen rain
I’ve seen sunny days that I thought would never end
I’ve seen lonely times when I could not find a friend
but I always thought that I’d see you again.

James Taylor’s Fire and Rain holds special significance for those of us who have lost a loved one prematurely.

So it is with friends of Chelsie Garner, whose father, Kevin Garner, shot and killed her, her mother, her aunt and cousin early Monday morning in rural Lauderdale County before setting fire to his home in Priceville and taking his own life.

Chelsie’s life was not easy — nobody’s is. But the active, gregarious 16-year-old lived through more than her share of hell.

Chelsie and her mother moved from Priceville to the small community of Greenhill last year to escape the violence and abuse Kevin Garner inflicted on them with increasing frequency and intensity. But the escape, it turns out, was only temporary.

The Daily’s Eric Fleischauer spoke with Chelsie’s friends and former teammates Wednesday in the dugout at Priceville High School’s softball field. Four of Chelsie’s closest friends were making a poster to celebrate her life at a candlelight vigil later that evening.

Ashlee Beggs, 16, and the other girls had a healthy perspective on the tragic loss of their former friend.

“This is sad,” Ashlee said, “but you don’t want to reflect on bad times. You don’t want to be sad all the time.”

So, as the girls created the poster celebrating their friend’s life, they dwelt on the happy times. They related stories about Chelsie’s love of softball, volleyball and dancing. They remembered Chelsie’s inclination to act crazy — sticking her tongue out and licking a pat of butter or wearing a hot pink headband to cover a cut on her head.

“We want people to see her crazy side,” said Meaghan Bond. “That’s what we were around all the time. If one of us was sad, she’d always find some way to make us cheer up.”

Ashlee told Eric that Chelsie and her mother had planned to escape from Kevin Garner’s abuse “for a long time,” but “they never had a chance when he was not there.”

Eventually, one day last year, mother and daughter packed up as much as they could and left while Kevin Garner was at work. Chelsie enrolled at Rogers High School and her Priceville friends did not even have a chance to say goodbye.

“She told me it would be best if we said goodbye later, so her dad wouldn’t know,” Deleasa Henderson told Eric.

Chelsie Garner saw more than her share of fire and rain in her short 16 years of life. Her school friends knew about the hard times and abuse she and her mother suffered at the hands of her father.

But they prefer to dwell on the sunny days.

April 7

It's a funny thing sometimes, this news business.

Not funny as in "ha, ha," but funny as in bizarre. It can also give you a new perspective and deeper appreciation for the blessings you have received.

On Tuesday, while Lauderdale County, state and federal law enforcement agencies were looking for a Priceville man, Kevin Lee Garner, who they believe has information about the shooting deaths of his estranged wife Tammy Morgan Garner, their daughter, his sister and his nephew; Morgan County authorities were sifting through the ashes of the estranged couple’s Priceville home, expecting to find his remains.

The bodies of the four shooting victims were discovered at about 8:25 a.m. Tuesday in a Greenhill house on Lauderdale County 73 near Heritage Chase subdivision. Authorities believe they were shot sometime between midnight and 3 a.m.

A passer-by reported the Priceville home jointly owned by Kevin and Tammy Garner burning at 2:59 a.m. Tuesday.

Kevin and Tammy Garner were scheduled to be in court Wednesday for a contested divorce.

The Daily has four reporters trying to track down the story. As details trickle in to the newsroom, we try to put the puzzle together and get a clearer picture of exactly what happened. We continue to post details on the Web site as they develop.

One Daily reader was appreciative of the online updates because they let the public know why Priceville schools were locked down. I guess that confirms that people generally view the news as it affects them personally.

One thing is certain: It is a tragic story. These are real people with real lives that have been cut short, including two children. Friends and family must be devastated by this morning’s developments.

When your loved ones return home this evening, be thankful for your blessings.