American resolve

Flags flew at half-mast, bells were rung as the names of the fallen were read, and the nation was brought back to September 11, 2001.  On that day America came under attack, and--as we recall--the World Trade Center was destroyed, the Pentagon sustained heavy damage, and a field in Pennsylvania was marred forever.  Lives were lost in unbelievable numbers.  The composition of families was changed:  sons, daughters, wives, husbands, brothers, and sisters were never to return to their homes.  Children would grow up without a father or a mother, there would be one less brother or sister and mothers and fathers would bury their children.  The day of the attacks, 2,606 people died in the World Trade Center and surrounding areas.  At the Pentagon, 125 individuals lost their lives and 44 went down with the plane in the Pennsylvania field.  Over 6000 were injured on this fateful day.  Subsequently it has been estimated that 1,140 people contracted some form of cancer from exposure to the toxins emitted from the destruction of the towers.  Approximately 1,400 rescue workers have died since the attacks.  The outcome of the attacks continues to have ramifications with those who were involved in or close to the devastation.  Some of the scars are visible while others are not seen, but still have left a lasting impact on the afflicted.

The evening of September 11, President George W. Bush addressed the nation and included in his remarks the following statements: “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America.  These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.”  Indeed, the response by the president was a major solidifying factor in bringing all Americans to stand together regardless of political party affiliation, religious orientation, gender, race or ethnicity.  America had been attacked and there was a sense of unity for all to support the administration in its response.  It is most unfortunate that often it is a catastrophe or some disaster that unites the populace to put ideology aside and do what needs to be done.  We have seen this when natural disasters occur such as tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, fires, volcanic eruptions floods, and we saw it after the attacks.  Why must there be major life-altering events to act as a unifying force amongst us? After 9/11, there was a measure of oneness that brought people together. 

As we reflect on the horrific attacks on this day there are memories that are indelibly etched in our psyche.  Even though there was a great deal of pain and suffering, people responded and volunteered to help in any way they could, but we have lost this sense of togetherness in the current climate that pervades our country.  There is a sense of pervasive skepticism in the behavior and actions of members of the current administration.  We have become a society that is marred by diverse and unwavering beliefs that often belie reason and simple common sense.  As we reflect on the current climate, can we foresee a better time—a time when people come together to deal with common issues, needs, and concerns? Will it take another catastrophic event to ignite the flames of a caring and unified society?   p American resolve does rise to the occasion when called upon to do so.  Let us hope that we can move to employ such resolve short of a unifying catastrophe.  

Filing the court's seat

In their book The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court, Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong describe how the Supreme Court functions.  There are numerous examples of informal actions that have dictated the course of judicial history since the beginning of the nation.  What strikes the reader of this interesting and fascinating description is that the sacred view of total objectivity is a myth that many of us have believed.  The belief that the Supreme Court is the last bastion of fairness and constrained decision-making is, simply, not true.  In the State of Alabama there is a lobbying effort that sort of plays into the thesis espoused in The Brethren. 

There are four Supreme Court Justices who will allow you to keep your gun beside your bed and four Supreme Court Justices who will not allow you to keep your gun beside your bed.  Thus, goes the message from what appears to be the National Rifle Association to the electorate of Alabama.  The advertisement is on television promoting support for the nomination of Bert Kavanaugh as the next Supreme Court Justice who will side with those four who support you keeping your gun beside you.  This advertisement is a prime example of attempts by a segment of the lobbying enterprise to impact perceptions of potential voters in Alabama.  The message continues by encouraging individuals to let Senator Doug Jones know how he is to vote during the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh.  The advertisement poses the question: who will Senator Jones side with, the people of Alabama or the liberals that make up the Democratic party.  The entirety of the message is a blatant insult to the intellect of the people of Alabama.  The advertisement is not based in fact, but so be it.  The four Justices who are identified as challenging your right to keep a gun are not against your right to do so.  They are not oriented to taking away the provisions of the Second Amendment, but, undoubtedly, they are against you having an AR 15 or another type of assault weapon leaning against your bed.  Gun control advocates are not asking anyone to abstain from shooting a gun; however, there is grave concern by these advocates about the proliferation of weapons that are not used for self-defense or hunting.

The actions that are being taken in Alabama cheapen the role of the US Supreme Court and have reduced the selection of a Justice to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy to a chaotic circus fraught with innuendos, misrepresentations, and lies.  What is occurring is nothing short of a political witch-hunt.  The selection of a Justice should be a thoughtful, considered, and thorough process.  As Senator Jones has noted, there are a multitude of documents that comprise the judicial and political history of Judge Kavanaugh and ample time should be given to review and analyze these documents by Republican and Democratic Senators.  He has strongly urged the Republican Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Charles Grassley, to postpone the hearings.  The hearings are scheduled to begin September 4th and there has not been any attempt by Grassley to change the date.  All of the documents that the Republicans on the Committee have requested will not be available until October; therefore, the hearings should not begin until a later date.  If the process of confirmation is to be thoughtful, considered, and thorough then allow for the Senators of both parties adequate time to review them.  To continue with the announced date is nothing short of a charade.        

Dark Money

Recently, I was made aware of a new film by Kimberly Reed, an independent film maker residing in New York City.  The title of the film is Dark Money and it addresses the issue of corporate and foreign money being used to fund political contests at both the state and federal levels.  In 2010 the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that: “Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates or elections.”   This decision opened to the proverbial lid of Pandora’s Box.  The decision allowed entities to set up 501(c) 6 organizations as a means of protecting the sources of money received, as well as not providing any data to show how the money was spent.  Hence the term “Dark Money” was born and continues to thrive.  Not only have  these types of organizations been used by corporations, but they have become a popular source of funding for colleges and universities. 

An article, “How the University of Alabama System funneled $1.4 million through a ‘dark money’ web”, appeared in AL.com back in August 2016. Also, another media source, Inside Higher Ed, included in their August 10, 2016, issue an article, “A University System’s Back Channel Way of Lobbying State Officials”.  This article was also referencing The University of Alabama.   At the time, I wrote a Letter to the Editor of The Tuscaloosa News, raising questions about the content of the article.  The paper chose not to publish the letter, but what I wrote included the following:

“Each of these media outlets addressed a growing phenomenon amongst colleges and universities to side-step the prohibition of not-for-profit organizations from engaging in political activity.  This is being done by forming 501(c)6 organizations, which allows them to funnel money into Super PACs for the purpose of lobbying state legislators.  The University of Alabama System is a member of the Alabama Association for Higher Education (AAHE) and has given substantial sums of money to this organization which then provides money to Innovation PAC.  Allegedly, there are 9 members of this association; however, when questioned, officials associated with the AAHE or the university’s system office have avoided identifying the other members. As reported in the Al.com article, the principal architects of the Alabama Association of Higher Education were Bill Jones, the former lobbyist for the University System and Robert Witt, the retiring Chancellor of the System.  What is being done is not illegal, but there is a reason the funds are referred to as “dark money”.  The practice undermines the law that allows organizations to be not-for-profit entities and makes a mockery of the principal of transparency.”

The ability to “hide” the donors and identify the beneficiaries of the funds creates an environment of mistrust and a blatant lack of confidence in the political process.  Indeed, elections are being bought and there is no greater evidence of this than the involvement of the Koch brothers in the use of “dark money”, primarily in providing funds to higher education to promote their rightwing political agenda. 

The cap

Typically, when I travel, I wear a cap with a distinct “A” on it denoting the University of Alabama.  I have had numerous expressions of “Roll Tide” directed my way because of the cap.  Recently, my wife and I were on vacation in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and went over to Teton Village to ride the tram to the top of the mountain.  The weather turned a bit dicey as the wind picked up and it began to rain.  Due to the change in the weather, we decided that the tram was no longer an option, so we ducked into a small café and bar.  Settling in at the bar, we noticed that there was one other couple and upon seeing my cap, the lady let out a “Roll Tide”.  As we talked, we learned that they were from Fairhope, Alabama.  We spent some time visiting with our new-found Tide supporters.  On this same trip we were leaving the Rocky Mountain west and flying back to Birmingham.  As we were going through security at the Denver airport, the TSA person asked where we were going and commented about the cap.  Similarly, on the plane a young lady made note of the university that I, obviously, supported.

A couple of years ago, my wife and I spent a week driving through the State of Oregon—a state that neither of us had visited.  One evening we were driving through a small coastal town looking for a place to have dinner.  We stopped at a restaurant that was on the shore but could not get a reservation.  As we left the restaurant, I heard “Roll Tide” which was spoken by a fellow I knew who had recently retired from the university where he had been a Professor of Statistics in the business school.  We chatted for some time and left to find another place to have dinner. 

Last year we were on a cruise through the Caribbean and going through the ship’s gift shop when we heard, “Roll Tide”.  We recognized that the person making the statement was a businesswoman from Tuscaloosa.  There would not have been any sense of recognition if it were not for the cap.  I also recall on another cruise to Alaska; a fellow began talking with me about the upcoming football season.  This discussion would not have occurred if I was not wearing the cap.  He was from Missouri and the University of Missouri had recently become a member of Southeastern Conference; therefore, he wanted to discuss their chances in the new conference.

I have come to realize that the cap fosters these exchanges and they would not occur if there was no cap.  The term “Roll Tide” is a unique greeting that is spoken in a variety of contexts within the state of Alabama as well as throughout the world.  It replaces a “hello” as a greeting and there is never any mystery about what is being referred to when the phrase is used.  I will continue to wear the cap as I travel, and I am certain that there will be other situations that generate a “Roll Tide”.

Unholy politics

Thankfully, we get a bit of a reprieve from the inane political commercials that permeated the televisions in the homes and businesses throughout the state in the months preceding the state’s primary elections.  The most blatant and distorted ads can be attributed to Ainsworth’s bid to become the Republican nominee for Lt. Governor.  It is most interesting that in his initial commercial prior to the primary, he is sitting in a church pew in front of a stained-glass window holding what is presumed to be a Bible.  He then lays claim to the inerrant contents of the Holy Book by stating that it has all the answers for any problem confronted by humankind.  Now fast-forward to his commercials prior to the runoff between him and Twinkle Cavanagh.  His ads are a litany of mean. vicious, and deceptive claims about Cavanagh, yet he continues to lay claim to be a “Christian, conservative, gun owner.”  In a recent article, Unholy Bible Belt politics, written for Al.com by Dana Hall McCain, she makes a very salient point when referring to an admonishment from the Bible that we are not to bear false witness against our neighbor, and to do so is “an affront to the God they trot out like a mascot.”  The unholy politics rampant prior to the primaries and the runoffs was not limited to the Lt. Governor’s race.

The races for Attorney General, Agriculture Commissioner and Supreme Court Justice were also prone to including statements that were questionable.  For example, Troy King claimed that Steve Marshall was really a Democrat running as a Republican.  To support this claim, the ad asserted that Marshall even had an Obama bumper sticker on his car.  When confronted about this, King stated that someone told him about it and he continued to use the claim even though Marshall denied that this was true.  The examples of offensive and unsubstantiated ads are legion and seem to be a clear case of the end justifying the means.  “Win at any cost” is the mantra that politicians for whatever office seem to follow.  I know that Alabama is not the only state where such antics occur, but these are the ones that I am aware of and are offended by.  I do believe that outside of the Bible Belt, politicians are not going to be touting their religious beliefs in effort to sway the electorate.  Unlike what we have been witness to for the past six or so months, they may refer to issues and their position on those issues.  There is a great deal that Alabama politicians ought to reference when it comes to issues, including education, prison conditions, health care for the poor, infrastructure problems, tax reform, reform of the archaic state constitution, to mention a few of the areas that are subject to discussion and debate. 

The voter turnout for the primaries on July 17, was pitifully and embarrassing low.  Only 12.7 percent of the registered voters went to the polls.  It should be noted that there were no significant Democratic runoffs, and this could be a partial explanation for the low turnout; however, it is conceivable that many registered voters simply were fed up with the debased nature of the ads that folks were subjected to at all hours of the day and night.  Is it possible that people were saying enough is enough and that --to demonstrate their angst-- they simply did not vote? 

Now that we have a bit of a reprieve from the television onslaught of those vying for state positions, we unfortunately, have the same kind of intrusion into our homes by ads for Kavanaugh’s nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court.  Recently, it was reported that several conservative camps, including the Koch brothers, were collectively, spending millions of dollars to promote Kavanaugh’s nomination and admonishing those watching to let their Senators know of their support for this nomination.  I can never recall this level of promotion for a Supreme Court nominee and it demeans the significance and importance of the role of a Supreme Court Justice.  There is no shame and, once again, we witness the end justifying the means.