Wednesday, December 8, 2021

Dear Gov. Ivey re controlling COVID

Dear Gov. Ivey,


In that piece, I discussed the political war erupting over vaccine mandates, with the Republicans seeking to prevent vaccine mandates and the Democrats advocating in favor of vaccine mandates. I said that the political war over mandates was threatening debilitation of the our economy and threatening another year's disruption in the education and socialization of our children.

Since then I have been charging you, AG Marshall and ALGOP legislators in Montgomery with 
nonfeasance, malfeasance or moral depravity for doing everything you and they can to prevent vaccine mandates in Alabama. See Nonfeasance, malfeasance or moral depravity (link https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2021/10/moral-depravity-letter.html).

I started drafting this email to you on December 7th in reaction your December 3rd letter to OSHA. I did my drafting publicly at https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2021/12/dear-gov-ivey-re-controlling-covid.html. After I send you this email, the text of the email will be public at the aforesaid link.

Your December 3rd letter
On December 3rd you wrote to OSHA a letter expressing your opposition to the federal, large company vaccine mandate. 

Your letter said your administration encourages vaccination as being safe and effective against COVID-19. 

To explain your opposition to the mandate your letter said this:

“. . .significant percentages of Alabama’s workforce have not received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Given all the efforts to educate and persuade Alabamians of the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness, I can only conclude that many Alabamians have profound – and sincere – medical, religious, or other reasons not to take it, In light of this data, I believe that enforcement of the ETS may lead many Alabamians to quit their jobs and leave the workforce – in the middle of a substantial labor shortage, no less – or to seek work at businesses not covered by the mandate Such disruption would interrupt people’s careers and threaten their livelihoods and the well-being of their families. Such disruption would also damage the productivity and bottom lines of businesses statewide.”

Also, your letter said that the mandate would increase vaccine skepticism in Alabama but your letter did not say whether you thought there would be more or fewer vaccinations in Alabama if the mandate was imposed, compared to if the mandate was not imposed.

I continue to condemn you

A. The political war 

I think you are more fighting the political war than acting in the best interests of the health and welfare of Alabamians, and that is why I charge you with moral depravity in your absolute opposition to any vaccine mandates in Alabama.
In support of said charge against you, I believe the political war has some truths that politicians grasp better than the voters, but that the voters will probably eventually grasp, and that could lead voters to be persuaded about my charge against you.
COVID, by itself, has caused great disruptions in the United States and is a detriment to good performance of the economy, adequate functioning of hospitals, and meeting the educational needs of our children.
The political war over vaccine mandates and other measures to control COVID adds significantly to these disruptions.
The truth that should not be lost sight of regards which side has what political motivation in the political war.
I think it is fairly the case the Democrats want not to have disruptions and chaos stemming from COVID, because they think that will hurt their chances in 2022. 
On the other side, I think it is fairly the case the Republicans' chances in 2022 are helped by there being more, rather than less, disruption and chaos stemming from COVID, and that may be attributed to them as their motive in carrying on the political war over mandates and other measures to control COVID. 
You are in the best position to know whether your motive in opposing mandates is political, and under that motive, you desire less reduction of COVID, more deaths and hospitalizations, and poorer performance of the economy to help the Republicans in 2022. 
Whatever you think about your motives, voters may grasp the foregoing truth regarding which side has what motive and be persuaded that your motive is political and, in acting on it, you have chosen for there to be less reduction of COVID, more hospitalizations and deaths, and poorer performance of the economy. 
This calls for close consideration of what you said in your December 3rd letter to OSHA. 

B. Why Alabamians are not getting vaccinated

There is uncertainty about why significant percentages of Alabama's workforce have not received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine. 
Widespread misinformation about the vaccines may be causing them not to get vaccinated, and if they were better informed they would get vaccinated. 
For many Alabamians, not getting vaccinated may be a political statement against Biden and the Democrats and in support of Trump and the Republicans. This gets accentuated by how intense the political war over mandates is, and the more intense the political war, the more there will be Alabamians who will not get vaccinated as their way to fight in the political war against the Democrats. Your opposition to vaccine mandates likely serves to increase the number of Alabamians who will not get vaccinated for political reasons. Your opposition to mandates probably represents a failure of leadership on your part in not telling Alabamians that they cannot and should not choose to not get vaccinated for political reasons.
Many Alabamians may choose not to do things that are for their own good, because it is inconvenient, or because they believe the good for them is insignificant, or because doing the good thing entails deprivation of a pleasure which they do not want to give up (e.g., even though smoking is bad for one's health, some Alabamians continue smoking because smoking is pleasurable).
Many Alabamians may strongly object to doing things the government tells them to do, such as wearing a seatbelt. You would appear to believe that there is a significant number of unvaccinated Alabamians who would eventually choose to be vaccinated, but, if there is a government mandate, they will not get vaccinated (i.e., such Alabamians would count as a reduction of vaccinations if there is a mandate compared to there not being a mandate).
Some Alabamians, as your letter says, may have sincere medical or religious reasons for not getting vaccinated. The federal large employer mandate has a COVID testing option instead of being vaccinated.

C. Effect of mandates 

1. Generally

More vaccinations mean less COVID, fewer hospitalizations, fewer deaths, less burden and cost on the health care system, less chance of dangerous COVID variants, and better performance of the economy.
If vaccine mandates would increase vaccinations in Alabama, and not decrease vaccinations, there would be the aforesaid benefit in Alabama of less COVID, fewer hospitalizations, fewer deaths, less burden and cost on the health care system, less chance of dangerous COVID variants, and better performance of the economy..
I believe vaccine mandates would increase vaccinations in Alabama. 
Only you know whether you genuinely believe that mandates would decrease vaccinations in Alabama. If you profess such a belief, some may conclude that you are misrepresenting what you believe to hide your political motive that you want less vaccination, less reduction of COVID and poorer performance of the economy to help Republicans in the 2022 elections.

2. Federal mandate
The effect on individual Alabamians and on the Alabama economy if the federal large company mandate was imposed and the extent to which Alabamians would quit their jobs if the federal mandate was imposed depends on the reasons these Alabamians are not getting vaccinated.
If Alabamians are not getting vaccinated because of misinformation about the vaccines, the federal mandate may overcome that misinformation and cause them to get vaccinated.
If Alabamians are not getting vaccinated for political reasons, they may decide that such political reasons are not sufficient reason for them to quit their jobs, and, as a result, they may choose to get vaccinated.
If Alabamians don't like doing things the government tells them to do, they may not like getting vaccinated because the government tells them to get vaccinated, but they may do what the government tells them to do about getting vaccinated just as they may fasten their seatbelts as the government tells them to do.
That leaves the reason of choosing not to get vaccinated, and thus quitting their jobs, for religious or medical reasons. The federal mandate has a testing option in lieu of getting vaccinated, and they may choose that option rather than quit their jobs.

D. Judging you

You may genuinely believe that you are acting in the best interests of the health and welfare of Alabamians, and that any vaccine mandates will hurt the Alabama economy and health care system more than having no vaccine mandates, be they federal, state, local or private. Part of what supports your belief is your own perception about your leadership as Governor and that you would not be able to persuade Alabamians to get vaccinated as required by one or more mandates. 
Your belief will eventually get measured against the experience of other states showing that mandates work.
You are in the best position to know your motivations and beliefs.
Voters may eventually, all things considered, be persuaded that you are acting for political motives and not in the best interests of the health and welfare of Alabamians.
I believe you are acting for political motives and not in the best interests of the health and welfare of Alabamians.

E. Omicron [added 12/17/21]

Omicron should be concentrating your mind enormously.
Today you don't know whether there will be a tidal wave of Omicron infections in Alabama in January.
Today you don't know whether Alabama hospitals will get overwhelmed this winter.
Today you don't know how worse unvaccinated and unboosted Alabamians will be affected by Omicron compared to vaccinated, or vaccinated and boosted, Alabamians.
Today you don't know how waning immunities from vaccines and waning immunities from previous infection will make Alabamians vulnerable to infection in 2022.
Today you don't know what you will do as Governor and leader of Alabama if COVID gets very bad for Alabama this winter or later in 2022.
Today you don't know how much worse the political war over mandates and other measures to control COVID will get if COVID gets bad this winter. Your current stance in that political war weakens your ability to do anything in the nature of mandates or other measures if COVID gets bad this winter.
At a minimum, it would seem you ought to have a press conference addressing the Omicron situation and what Alabamians may need to prepare for this winter. Not having a press conference is, I think, ducking your responsibilities as Governor.

F. Capitol Journal [added 12/17/21]

Last Friday Don Dailey said on Capitol Journal he hoped to have you on tonight's Capitol Journal to talk about your opposition to the vaccine mandates.
I am using the prospect of that tonight to finalize and send this email to you now.



12/17/21 4pm The above email was sent to Gov. Ivey using her office email contact form and the below confirmation was received back.
Form Submitted Thank you for contacting Governor Kay Ivey. Your request has been received.

12/26/21

4/16/22

11/17/22 

Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, November 20, 2021

Email to CBS 42

[The below is the text of an email I have sent to CBS 42 News Director Rob Martin on 11/23/21]

To CBS42

The immediate purpose of this email is to urge CBS42 to provide a forum in which Alabamians who are antagonists in the fight over "critical race theory" in Alabama schools may have a conversation on CBS42 that has the effect of tamping down the fight.


Politics in crisis
The driver of this email is my belief that the United States is in a dire crisis of politics. 

If you do not think there is a dire crisis, do not bother reading this email any further. 

Otherwise you should please continue reading.

The dire crisis of politics is the waging of total, existential political warfare between the two political parties, in which each side says the other side is threatening the destruction of democracy in the United States (albeit the destruction being in different ways). 

The Democrats say the Republicans are seeking to fundamentally alter how governance of the United States is determined and to create and perpetuate a minority governance over the majority. Their actions include availing of the current decennial redistricting to favor the Republicans, and nationwide efforts to get state voting laws changed in ways that will favor Republicans, including increasing the ability of Republican controlled state legislatures and officials to disregard the votes of the state's voters in the 2024 Presidential election in how the state casts its votes in the electoral college. This is happening on the Republican side under the domination of Donald Trump and with a view to making him President again in 2024.

The Republicans say the Democrats are threatening to implement socialism and bring about repressive authoritarian control by the central government in Washington DC. A flavor of this is given by the below in Rep. Barry Moore's statement about the reconciliation bill at  https://barrymoore.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-barry-moore-opposes-dangerous-reconciliation-bill

“The most serious threat to our representative democracy is the betrayal of the values that empowered us to become the freest, most prosperous nation in the history of the free world. The dangerous bill advanced by House Democrats today would bring our nation alarmingly closer to the repressive socialist utopia envisioned by power hungry globalists who abhor American exceptionalism and the rights of all individuals. This transformative legislation seeks to elevate government to the all-powerful role of provider of our livelihoods and our liberties, not the protector of our God-given rights that our brilliant Founders created."

In this total political warfare between the Republicans and the Democrats, every significant political disagreement is fought over ferociously and exploited to keep riled up  the political base that is needed to be soldier combatants against the other side.

There are factors that worsen the situation of the total political war between Republicans and Democrats, including particular ones applicable to Alabama. These factors include the following:

1. The extent to which Alabama is a one party state, with Republicans being in control and  unaccountable in a reasonably competitive electoral process in Alabama; 

2. The debilitation of local newspapers and their ability to help in holding elected officials accountable;

3. The ability of Republicans in office, and Republican candidates for office, to avoid answering questions that voters should hear answered;

4. The rise of  social media as voters' main source of information and the huge problem of  misinformation and disinformation on social media;

5. Extreme political polarization, the two sides not having reasonable public conversation with each other, and voters seeking or accepting being walled off from hearing the other side; and

6. The destruction of trust in institutions and authority.

In this dire crisis of politics, the highest motivation of the leaderships in the waging of the total political war is for one's side to have the power and for the other side not to have the power, with the best interests of the United States being secondary, if not disregarded. A large majority of Americans are being victimized in this existential power struggle by the leaderships of the two sides. This majority of Americans can be rightfully very pessimistic about the functioning of our democracy and its capacity to produce a governance of the society that, through  compromise, has a large majority consensus of acceptance.

Instead of  compromise, and a a large majority acceptance of the process by which governance is determined through elections, there is rage and demonizing, and no large majority acceptance of our  governance and our institutions of governance.

Local TV stations; my suggestions
Management, news producers, program anchors and reporters at Alabama TV stations should contemplate the foregoing, decide the extent to which they believe there is a dire crisis of politics in the United States, think about whether the role of their TV stations includes trying to help the United States overcome its dire crisis, and decide whether their TV station can and should undertake additions or modifications in their news programming, particularly looking forward to the 2022 elections. 

Generally I think TV stations should focus on the extent of one sided distortions that the two sides communicate to their base and whether and how the TV station may make their viewers aware of the distortions they receive from their political side, and the viewers perhaps having their minds changed in how they view the particular subject.

I have the following suggestions:

1. Press elected officials and candidates harder to get answers to questions they don't want to answer. If officials and candidate balks, employ the "empty chair" tactic I urged to Ms. Susana Schuler, President & General Manager, WVTM13, as set out at https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2021/01/open-reply-to-susana-schuler.html.

2. Identify issues that, in the national crisis of politics, the TV station thinks are especially worthy of editorializing by the TV station, and do on air editorializing. 

3. Try to get debates between representatives of the two sides. Develop town hall and round table type conversations involving regular Alabamians on both sides.

4. Identify groups in Alabama that are influential and that have concerns about issues  you have identified as worthy of editorialization. Engage with the groups with the view of providing them a TV forum in which to express their views. Particularly address with the groups the extent they have lost the trust of Alabamians and endeavor to work with the groups to rebuild trust through their presentations on TV. Consider how I have endeavored to engage the business community as indicated at https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2019/11/silos-in-al-politics.html, but to little avail. Ask the Alabama Republican Party whether it has a desire for a TV forum via your TV station. If the answer is yes, engage with them about whether the forum can be utilized by the party in a way that positively contributes to the TV station fulfilling the role you have for your TV station, as discussed above. I think most TV stations have done a good job in involving the medical community expertise related to COVID, the vaccines and vaccination. One new thing that might be done is to have direct, side by side engagement between the medical community and Republican elected officials relative to vaccine mandates.

5. Talk to your audience about the problem of social media misinformation and develop program presentations for helping your audience to overcome the problem for themselves personally.

6. Convey to your audience the problem of the debilitation of local newspapers and their ability to contribute to holding elected officials accountable; that your TV station is endeavoring to step into the breach: and what your TV station is undertaking to do in its programming. If your TV station needs funding to undertake new, added programming, tell your audience that. Have a mechanism in place for receiving contributions from individuals, corporations, and nonprofit organizations.

Particular issues and matters
If your TV station undertakes any of the foregoing suggestions or has other ideas for new things to do, I think the focus should be on matters as to which the TV station believes one side or the other, or both sides, communicate gross, one sided messaging to their base. Your TV station should consider the extent to which such messaging enrages their base against the other side and adds to polarization and division in the country. Your TV station should think about whether it can effectively make its viewers conscious of the one sided distortions that the viewers receive from their side and potentially may have their minds changed in how they view the particular subject. Particularly think about how the sidelined majority in the middle will react favorably to reasonable, centrist, unemotional discourse on the subject.

I list four matters below that are loaded with the vituperation of our politics in crisis and deserve attention by your TV station (I think). There are other matters I could list as well, but this email has enough in it  As to the four matters, I have made protracted, unavailing, efforts to ameliorate gross, one sided distortions that are messaged to the base of one side, or the other. For what it is worth, I give links and other information regarding the same that a TV station might consider helpful in trying to decide its own approach.

1. Rigged 2020 election or not; January 6th; rule of law
These subjects are central to the dire crisis of politics in the United States. They are expansive. 

2. Critical race theory.
See tweets and their thread at the beginning of this blog entry.

3. Vaccines and mandates
I have spent weeks trying to get a response to my charging that Gov. Ivey and ALGOP legislators are guilty of nonfeasance, malfeasance or moral depravity in their prohibiting vaccine mandates in Alabama.

4. Guns

Conclusion
This email to you is being done by copying and pasting the text set out at the aforesaid link into an email form and sending the email. Evidence of my emailing will be by copying the heading of the actual email showing email addressee and date and time of emailing and pasting it below the [end of text of email to CBS42] designation below.
One way or another, I will communicate the substance of this email to other TV stations and others in Alabama.
After sending my email to CBS42, I may or may not make changes to the text. If I make changes, I will indicate the changes under the below  [end of text of email to CBS42] designation.

In closing my appeal here, I emphasize how unwilling ALGOP lawmakers in Congress, ALGOP candidates, ALGOP party leaders and ALGOP media cheerleaders are to engage in any reasonable conversation with me about anything. Those persons have the power and are secure in their positions, and they don't have to engage in any conversation with any Alabamian who wants to express reasonable disagreement regarding their positions on the issues. I have tried to appeal to the Alabama business community about this, to no avail. The Alabama Democratic Party gets little or no attention in whatever it might say and has not invited me to have any conversation with them. The academic community does not seem to be in a position to make pronouncements which will be fairly considered by Alabama Republicans. I don't know how much weight print newspapers in Alabama have with readers.
To me the foregoing leaves only Alabama TV stations to appeal to, which I have been trying to do for more than a year. This email is my latest try.
Regardless of what happens in Alabama related to the crisis in politics in Alabama and throughout the United States, that crisis will stay boiling so long as the Republican Party is dominated by Donald Trump, which will be at least through the 2022 elections and likely until the 2024 election. 

Sincerely,

[end of text of email to CBS42]


Email sent to CBS 42 News Director Rob Martin
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: rmartin@cbs42.com <rmartin@cbs42.com>
Sent: Tue, Nov 23, 2021 6:28 pm
Subject: Appeal to CBS42 regarding United States dire crisis of politics

11/29/21
The below tweets are part of my communicating to other Alabama TV stations the email I sent to CBS42.
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, November 14, 2021

Lawsuit to compensate separated immigrant children

The lawsuit seeking compensation for illegal immigrant children who were separated from parents at the border is highly politically charged and is being politically exploited. 

This political exploitation is to be expected in these years of hyper political warfare in the United States in which the interests of the country are detrimentally subordinated to the power interests of one's political party and winning elections to have that power,

Lost in the political exploitation of the immigrant children's lawsuit is the presence of perennial important problems with the mechanisms that society has for protecting its members from the wrongdoings of others in the society and how those victims of wrongdoing should be compensated for losses that the wrongdoing causes them.

Lawmakers are responsible for some of these problems, but they will not or cannot act to ameliorate the problems.

12/7/21
In January 2018 I initiated discussion of the mechanisms that society has for protecting its members from the wrongdoings of others in the society and how those victims of wrongdoing should be compensated for losses that the wrongdoing causes them. I did this in connection with the Alabama Attorney General election. See Larry Nassar and AAG election.

In that discussion, I mentioned Michigan State University's payment of a $500,000,000 settlement in the Larry Nassar case; the USA Gymnastics filing for bankruptcy as a result; the Former President of Michigan State University Lou Anna Simon being charged with two felony and two misdemeanor counts for allegedly lying to police during their investigation of Larry Nassar.

I also mentioned the University of Southern California case of allegations of sexual harassment and abuse by a gynecologist who had worked at the USC student health center; USC reaching  a tentative class action settlement agreement worth $215 million regarding the allegations; and the USC President resigning as a result of the scandal and a second scandal of hard core drug use by a medical dean. 

Further I brought up the past 25 years of numerous settlements and bankruptcies in Catholic Church sex abuse cases in the United States (listed at  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlements_and_bankruptcies_in_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases.)
At the time 29 priests and deacons in the Catholic Archdiocese of Mobile, Alabama had been "credibly accused" of sexual misconduct with a child since 1950.

I further mentioned the 90,000 sex abuse claims against the Boy Scouts of America.

While the cases I discussed in Larry Nassar and AAG election involved sexual wrongdoings and compensating victims of sexual wrongdoings, all human activities in the society raise the important matters of how to prevent wrongdoing from happening and how victims of wrongdoing should be compensated for harms to them. 

Much national attention continues to be given to mass shootings, and the question of what society can or should do to ;try to prevent mass shootings. Associated with this is whether and how the victims of mass shootings and their families should be compensated. The following are four mass shooting cases and associated lawsuits and settlements, for which I give links to news articles for more information. 

Questions for consideration:
1. How helpful and beneficial are such lawsuits and settlements in society's efforts to prevent mass shootings?
2. Whether or not the lawsuits and settlements help in society's efforts to prevent mass shootings, should victims of mass shootings and their families be compensated in the way afforded by the lawsuits and settlements?


Court approves $800M settlement for MGM Resorts, Vegas shooting victims


Court approves $800M settlement for MGM Resorts, Vegas shooting victims










Posted by at No comments:

Friday, November 12, 2021

Rittenhouse & upcoming SCOTUS decision

The Rittenhouse case shines a powerful, new, national spotlight on the pending New York gun regulation case before the United States Supreme Court and on how the United States shall seek to have law and order for Americans. 

Regardless of how the Rittenhouse case comes out, national passions have been stimulated on both sides of those who favor more gun control and those who want less gun control.

Those who want more gun control are in passionate outrage over the idea that Rittenhouse could buy an AR-15, cross state lines [edit 11/20/21 Since posting this entry it has been called to my attention that Rittenhouse did not carry AR-15 across state lines. Such does not diminish what this entry otherwise says.] to go to Kenosha where protests were taking place, kill two protesters, and possibly escape punishment for his actions.

Those who are opposed to gun control potentially find Rittenhouse a champion of citizens taking action on behalf of law and order and see in him a role model for other citizens to take up guns in similar ways to uphold law and order.

[to be continued]

The two competing visions for  how Americans shall seek to have law and order are starkly clashing.

One side says the police by themselves are inadequate for providing law and order for Americans, and good guy citizens with guns are indispensable to society for stopping bad guys with guns.

The other side feels America is being overwhelmed by daily gun violence and more gun control is desperately needed. They think that citizens like Rittenhouse who purportedly want to be good guy citizens out and about with guns to stop bad guys with guns are a cause of more gun violence and are intolerable, and must be shut down.

The pending United States Supreme Court case will have bearing on whether states and cities have the power to make it unlawful for wannabe good guy citizens to be out and about with guns to stop bad guy citizens with guns. That is not to say whether states or cities will exercise such a power, but only to say whether states and cities have the power if they choose to exercise the power.

Let there be a national debate about whether states and cities should at least have the power to outlaw wannabe good guy citizens such as Rittenhouse being out and about with guns to stop bad guys with guns.

[possibly to be further continued]




Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, November 10, 2021

Who thinks what about reducing healthcare costs

A November 6th Washington Times article "‘You don’t run from a fight’: GOP policy chairman offers hopeful vision while being in the minority" reports that one of the things Rep. Gary Palmer wants to prioritize for his party is lowering health care costs. Rep. Palmer is Chairman of the House Republican Policy committee. The committee's webpage for health care policy is at  https://republicanpolicy.house.gov/issues/healthcare. In October 2020 the Committee released a policy brief “High Costs of Socialized Medicine”.

I have a longstanding effort for Rep. Palmer to engage with his constituents (including myself) concerning his health care policy ideas. A sense of the substance of this can be found at https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2017/03/al-expertise.html

Earlier this year I contacted Rep. Palmer (as well as Senators Shelby and Tuberville and my Alabama officials and reps) about a class action lawsuit concerning Blue Cross Blue Shield allegedly restricting competition in health care insurance during years 2008 through 2020 and thereby increasing health care premiums and health care costs. See BCBS settlement -reducing health care costs

I solicited Rep. Palmer (and the others I contacted) to submit their views to the Court of whether the class action settlement would help reduce health insurance premiums and health care costs.

Last month I attended the first day of the fairness hearing in the class action settlement, and I sent the email set out below to those persons and others I had contacted.

This is a continuation of effort for Rep. Palmer to engage with his constituents (including myself) concerning his health care policy ideas and further expose his policy ideas for public consideration, including by the Court in the Blue Cross class action litigation.


[My email]
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>To: John.McDonald@insurance.alabama.gov <John.McDonald@insurance.alabama.gov>; lindsey.lewis@alsenate.gov <lindsey.lewis@alsenate.gov>; karen.mcguire@shpda.alabama.gov <karen.mcguire@shpda.alabama.gov>; elizabeth.hance@mail.house.gov <elizabeth.hance@mail.house.gov>; dhoward@alaha.org <dhoward@alaha.org>; robins@bcatoday.org <robins@bcatoday.org>; morrisey@uab.edu <morrisey@uab.edu>; nborkows@uab.edu <nborkows@uab.edu>; cratclif@samford.edu <cratclif@samford.edu>; gil_hanahan@tuberville.senate.gov <gil_hanahan@tuberville.senate.gov>; jwcarns@gmail.com <jwcarns@gmail.com>; catherine.sharkey@nyu.edu <catherine.sharkey@nyu.edu>
Cc: egentle@gtandslaw.com <egentle@gtandslaw.com>; BCBS-Settlement@bsfllp.com <BCBS-Settlement@bsfllp.com>; BCBSsettlement@hausfeld.com <BCBSsettlement@hausfeld.com>; BCBSsettlement@kirkland.com <BCBSsettlement@kirkland.com>; lowrey@bmelaw.com <lowrey@bmelaw.com>; kharbison@gtandslaw.com <kharbison@gtandslaw.com>
Sent: Wed, Oct 27, 2021 8:21 am
Subject: Status report re Blue Cross Blue Shield class action settlement

For the offices of:
The Honorable Kay Ivey
The Honorable Richard Shelby
The Honorable Tommy Tuberville
The Honorable Gary Palmer
The Honorable Steve Marshall
The Honorable Dan Roberts
The Honorable Jim Carns
(via the above email addressees in some cases and using website contact forms in some cases after sending this email)
AND
To above email addressees to whom I otherwise previously communicated regarding this matter

Last Wednesday I attended the first day of the fairness hearing at the United States courthouse in Birmingham.
The interest I am trying to advance is that of lowering health insurance premiums and health care costs for Alabamians (and other Americans).
I am questioning whether the class action, the settlement agreement, and the Injunctive Relief are beneficial and advisable in advancing the objective of lowering health insurance premiums and health care costs.
As the second email below indicates, the Home Depot lawyer raised in the fairness hearing that the Injunctive Relief would be an experiment going forward, that there is great uncertainty about what will in fact happen in the health insurance industry if the Injunctive Relief is put in place, and that the Injunctive Relief could form the structure of the health insurance industry (and affect the entirety of the health care system) for many years to come, and questioned what is or should be the effect of the Injunctive Relief in light of that.
Further, at the first day of the fairness hearing, Judge Proctor more than once asked about the federal antitrust regulators and why they did nothing for decades even though the Blue Cross Blue Shield practices were well known to them for decades, why weren't the federal regulators commenting to the Court about the settlement agreement, and what should he Judge Proctor make of the non-involvement of the federal regulators.
My information is that none of the federal and state officials who were given the required CAFA notice of the class action settlement responded to the notice, with the exception that the Department of Labor filed something in the nature of an objection. (My recollection is that Judge Proctor said that he was aware that the Washington State Insurance Commissioner viewed the class action settlement favorably.)
The purpose of my prior communications directed to Gov. Ivey, Senators Shelby and Tuberville, Rep. Palmer, AG Marshall, Sen. Roberts, and Rep. Carns, and to other addressees on this email, was to solicit input from them about the settlement agreement from the perspectives of their official governmental positions or other professional or academic interests regarding health insurance premiums and health care costs, and for such input to be provided to the the Court to consider in its review of the settlement agreement.
The opportunity to provide such input to the Court would seem to still exist. Any input to the Court at this time might be provided directly to the Special Master Mr. Ed Gentle (email address is above), or you can provide it to me and I will refer it to Mr. Gentle.
Thank you very much for you attention to this email.
Sincerely,

From: Edgar C. Gentle III <egentle@gtandslaw.com>
To: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
Cc: BCBS-Settlement@bsfllp.com <BCBS-Settlement@bsfllp.com>; BCBSsettlement@hausfeld.com <BCBSsettlement@hausfeld.com>; BCBSsettlement@kirkland.com <BCBSsettlement@kirkland.com>; lowrey@bmelaw.com <lowrey@bmelaw.com>; Kip Harbison <kharbison@gtandslaw.com>
Sent: Thu, Oct 21, 2021 7:49 am
Subject: Re: BCBS settlement - Withdrawal of request to speak
Thanks Rob, I have passed your email on to the Court.
Stay safe and I hope to see you soon,
Ed
Sent from my iPhone

From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: egentle@gtandslaw.com <egentle@gtandslaw.com>
Cc: bcbs-settlement@bsfllp.com <bcbs-settlement@bsfllp.com>; bcbssettlement@hausfeld.com <bcbssettlement@hausfeld.com>; bcbssettlement@kirkland.com <bcbssettlement@kirkland.com>; lowrey@bmelaw.com <lowrey@bmelaw.com>; Kharbison@gtandslaw.com <Kharbison@gtandslaw.com>
Sent: Thu, Oct 21, 2021 7:44 am
Subject: BCBS settlement - Withdrawal of request to speak
Dear Ed,
Taking to heart what Judge Proctor said at the end of the day yesterday, I withdraw my request to speak at the fairness hearing today.
As I indicated to you, I filed with the Clerk of the Court yesterday my Memorandum Regarding Objection of Robert Shattuck (which Memorandum I had emailed on Sunday to Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel, and Counsel for Settling Defendants, as well as to yourself).
I don't know how much more Judge Proctor will ask about the federal antitrust regulators and why have they done nothing for decades, why aren't they commenting to the Court about the settlement agreement, and what should he Judge Proctor make of the non-involvement of the federal antitrust regulators.
Also, I don't know how much more Judge Proctor will mention how large companies as well have for decades taken no legal steps to challenge the BCBS arrangements.
I was very taken by the remarks of Home Depot's counsel about the injunctive relief being an experiment going forward, the great uncertainty concerning what will in fact happen in the health insurance industry if the injunctive relief is put in place, how the injunctive relief could form the structure of the health insurance industry (and affect the entirety of the health care system) for many years to come, and what is or should be the effect of the injunctive relief in light of that.
As my Objection and Memorandum indicate, I initiated trying to get the views of my two U.S. Senators and my Representative in Congress, as well as of my relevant state officials, regarding the settlement agreement from their perspectives as lawmakers and government administrators involved with the health care system and health insurance.
Since approval of the settlement agreement is likely still a couple of weeks off, I may continue with my efforts and file a Supplemental Memorandum if I learn anything further that warrants calling to the attention of the Court.
I have included Home Depot's counsel Mr. Frank Lowrey to receive a copy of this email, having emailed to him last night my Memorandum for what it was worth to Home Depot and him in pursuing Home Depot's objectives relative to the settlement agreement.
I have two concluding comments.
First, the uncertainty that exists regarding what the effect of the injunctive relief will be going forward (if the injunctive relief is put in place at this time) similarly exists in retrospect for the damages period 2008 to 2020. Just as it is unknown how much future competition will keep future insurance premiums lower, it is unknown how much increased competition in the 2008 to 2020 period would have kept insurance premiums lower if the injunctive relief had been put in place in 2008.
Second, it behooves keeping in mind that total annual United States health care spending is about $3.5 trillion, of which about $1.2 trillion comes through private health insurance, and comparing to that Plaintiffs estimate of a potential maximum single damages recovery that ranges from $18.6 billion to $36.1 billion, i.e. Plaintiffs estimate that health insurance premiums and health care costs were excessive by a maximum of $36.1 billion, and said excess $36.1 billion is not an excess amount annually but an excess amount spread over the 2008 to 2012 damages settlement period. That $36.1 billion excess is less than a pimple on annual health insurance premiums (and health care costs from health insurance) of $1.2 trillion. It is submitted that the larger the amount of health insurance premiums and health care costs, which are affected by multiple and changing factors that are contributing to the total premiums and health care costs, the harder it is to model/show/estimate/quantify how much a small factor (Defendants' arrangements) contributed to, or will contribute to total health insurance premiums and total health care costs.
By the same token, the large companies that did nothing for decades about Defendants' known business practices had total health care costs that came from a variety of factors that could be worked on to reduce their health care costs. Defendants' arrangements could have been viewed as a small factor, and such large companies decided other factors were more worthy of their attention for working to reduce their health care costs.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, November 5, 2021

Nonviolent citizens war on ALGOP


See Nonfeasance, malfeasance or moral depravity, October 30, 2021

Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, October 30, 2021

Nonfeasance, malfeasance or moral depravity

[11/6/21 This is a letter I have been drafting to send to my Alabama Senator and my Alabama representative in Montgomery. The drafting is now complete, and the below is my letter that I have  emailed to Sen. Roberts and Rep. Carns.]


Subj: Nonfeasance, malfeasance or moral depravity regarding vaccine mandates

Dear [Sen. Roberts] [Rep Carns]:

Virtually everyone agrees the most important thing for the United States to succeed in the fight against the pandemic, and to recover from the enormous economic, social, psychological and educational destruction done by the pandemic, is to get as much of the population vaccinated as possible.

I contend that it was nonfeasance, malfeasance and/or moral depravity on the part of Alabama legislators to vote in May to prohibit the use of vaccine passports by the government, businesses and employers, and it is nonfeasance, malfeasance and/or moral depravity for Gov. Ivey to oppose absolutely government vaccine mandates, and give no explanation of her reasons.

The foregoing is an extreme condemnation, and there may be room for such Alabama legislators and Gov. Ivey to mitigate the condemnation by what they may choose to say in reaction to things I say in this letter 

I . Absolute freedom of citizens, or not
A first matter is whether citizens have an absolute freedom to do whatever they want.

There may be many citizens who assert they have an absolute freedom to do whatever they want.

Under the United States constitution and state constitutions, and under the rule of law, it is absolutely clear that citizens do not have an absolute freedom to do whatever they want. 

A couple of examples are worthy of mention for advancing the argument I am making about nonfeasance, malfeasance and/or moral depravity.

A. Drugs
Libertarians contend that citizens should be free to do whatever they want, provided it does not harm others. For example, libertarians argue in favor of citizens being free to use any drugs, such as heroin, as they choose to use.

Alabama law prohibits the possession of heroin, which limits the freedom of a person to use heroin, and unless Gov. Ivey or an Alabama legislator says otherwise, I will assume Gov. Ivey in opposing vaccine mandates and those Alabama legislators voting to prohibit vaccine passports do not object to the limitation on the freedom of Alabamians to possess and use heroin.

B. Military draft
The military draft is a limitation on citizen freedom in the extreme. 

Conscientious objector status may be claimed, but it is a rigorous standard ("Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man’s reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man’s lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims."). Further there is an Alternative Service Requirement for those who are granted conscientious objector status.

C. Jacobson case 
The United States Supreme Court, in 1905, opined on the limitation on citizen freedom in the context of a smallpox vaccine mandate and upheld the smallpox vaccine mandate. Justice Harlan said,
“But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good.”


II. Powers and duties of government to protect health & safety of citizens

A. Powers
The Alabama government and government officials have powers to protect the health and safety of citizens. Alabama Code § 22-2-2 (2020) - State Board of Health - Authority and Jurisdiction. :: 2020 Code of Alabama :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

On March 19, 2020 Governor Ivey and the Alabama Department of Public Health  issued a statewide health order to aid in Alabama’s efforts to contain the spread of the COVID-19, which order limited public gatherings, closed senior centers and schools, prohibited outsiders from visiting nursing homes, and prohibited restaurants and bars from serving customers on their premises. https://governor.alabama.gov/newsroom/2020/03/governor-ivey-issues-statement-on-statewide-public-health-order/

B. Duty
If a public official has the authority to act to protect the health and safety of citizens, and if the public official chooses not to exercise that power because the public official wants citizens not be safe and not be healthy, and wants citizens to die or become sick, and as a result citizens die or become sick, I would call the public official morally depraved. Legally, that is termed malfeasance or nonfeasance by the public official.

C. How a power is exercised by a public official
It is rare, if ever, that it will be established that a public official has a power  to protect the health and safety of citizens and has chosen not to exercise the power because the public official wants citizens not be safe and not be healthy, and wants citizens to die or become sick, and as a result citizens die or become sick.

There are gradations of possible malfeasance or nonfeasance. For example, the public official might act or not act on whim, such as by flipping a coin, and deciding "heads I will act and tails I will not act".

To be beyond acting on whim or on the basis of a flip of a coin, a public official needs to have reasons for acting or not acting. Reasons can be valid or flawed, and there can be reasonable disagreement about whether a reason is valid or flawed. Also there can be valid reasons both for acting, and for not acting, and such reasons for and against acting need to be weighed against each other, and as to that there may reasonable disagreement about how the balancing should come out.

Validity of reasons is dependent on what the relevant facts are. Relevant facts may not be known with 100% certainty, and a public official may need to make judgments or estimates about what the official believes the facts are. A public official may consult experts and advisers to help the official with the foregoing matters of validity of reasons, weighing reasons for and against, and ascertaining or estimating facts.

A public official will likely do the foregoing better if the official explains to the citizens the reasons for the official's decision to act or not and the facts or estimates of facts that were the basis of the official's decision.

D. Application of foregoing to a public official's decision about vaccine mandates
There are numerous factors, and facts that have bearing on reasons for and against vaccine mandates. These numerous factors make for an extremely difficult decision to be made by a public official about vaccine mandates. Different degrees of certainty exist regarding  the different factors in question.

A threshold factor is the extent to which vaccines work and prevent hospitalizations and death, compared to persons not being vaccinated, and also the extent to which vaccination decreases the rate of  infection of others.

A central factor is the extent to which mandates work and result in more vaccinations than without the mandates, or whether mandates decrease the number of vaccinations, compared to there not being mandates. A special category of cases is that of individuals who believe misinformation about the vaccine and choose not to get vaccinated by reason of such belief, and the extent to which a mandate will result in those individuals getting vaccinated, compared to there not being a mandate. 

A factor bearing on whether vaccine mandates work is whether the citizens are in favor of, or against, vaccine mandates. My understanding is that surveys have been done in Alabama, and they indicate in the range of 65% of Alabamians are against vaccine mandates.  I am not clear whether the surveys concern Biden's proposed federal mandate only, or whether the surveys are about any vaccine mandate, be it by the federal government, or a state or local government, or an employer. If citizens greatly oppose vaccine mandates, mandates may result in fewer vaccinations and have other negative consequences for the functioning of the society and the economy.

As regards citizens opposing mandates, the reasons individual citizens have for their opposition are relevant, such as whether the person's opposition to a mandate is a general opposition to the government (or anyone else) telling the person what to do about anything, whether the individual opposes the mandate for political reasons, or whether an individual is against the vaccine as a result of the person believing misinformation about the vaccine and thus opposes the mandate because of that.

Besides the positive effects on the health and safety of  Alabamians if mandates result in more citizens being vaccinated (or negative effects if mandates result in fewer vaccinations), there is the factor of how  the economic and social activities will be affected by the reactions of citizens to mandates compared to how they are affected if there are not mandates.. Resistance to mandates and refusals to get vaccinated may create significant disruptions. This will be affected by the extent to which mandates are opposed by Alabamians. 

An extremely important, and personal, factor for the public official is whether and how the official can influence the foregoing factors by means of the official's leadership qualities and abilities. This includes whether the public official can, and is willing to, explain to the citizens the foregoing factors that are relevant to the official's decision about mandates, and whether and to what extent the official is able to  persuade citizens to have different reactions to a mandate, compared to if the official makes no explanation to the citizens.

In sum, the numerous factors, and related relevant facts and estimations about relevant facts, related to a public official's decision about vaccine mandates, make for an extremely hard decision for the public official about vaccine mandates.

III. Judging Gov. Ivey 
A. Absolute decision against government mandates without explanation
In connection with her October 25th Executive Order to fight the Biden mandates, Gov. Ivey issued a statement which said,
 I am adamantly opposed to federal mandates related to the covid-19 vaccine and adamantly opposed to state mandates related to the covid-19 vaccine, plain and simple. As long as I am your governor, the state of Alabama will not force anyone to take a covid-19 vaccine.

Gov. Ivey's statement gave no explanation of her decision making process in deciding to be absolutely against government vaccine mandates in Alabama and not to give any explanation of her decision.

It is unknown the extent to which Gov. Ivey undertook the complex and difficult decision making process outlined above. 

One possibility is that Gov. Ivey chose not to engage in that decision making process and her  decision making is fairly set out as "Alabamians don't want government to tell them whether to get vaccinated, vaccination is entirely their personal choice, and I as Governor support and will support that absolutely, and I as Governor need not think about, and have not thought about, and will not think about, or give any consideration to anything else whatsoever."

Another possibility is that Gov. Ivey is not able to undertake the complex and difficult decision making process outlined above.

Possibly Gov. Ivey went through a complex and difficult decision making process, decided against government vaccine mandates, and chose not to explain her decision making process and instead said only what she said in her statement.

Gov. Ivey's absolute decision against governmental vaccine mandates, and giving no explanation for the decision, needs to be judged without knowing which of the foregoing three possibilities best describes Gov. Ivey's decision making process.

The current focus of attention is a mandate in the form of either get vaccinated or lose your job. Unless Gov. Ivey clarifies otherwise, it is assumed her absolute opposition to government mandates includes opposition to a government mandate that imposes a fine if a person does not get vaccinated. Also, it is assumed that Gov. Ivey's opposition to government mandate would not be changed if a mandate has religious and medical exemptions, or if vaccination would not be required if a person had natural immunity.

Gov. Ivey's absolute opposition to government vaccine mandates, with no reasons being given, has consequences and ramifications that need discussion.

B. Looking back at pandemic of the unvaccinated
Judging Gov. Ivey's absolute opposition to government vaccine mandates can be put in focus by looking back retrospectively and posing these questions:

Gov. Ivey, if you knew in March what you know now about the pandemic of the unvaccinated that has taken place in Alabama during the past six months, would you have used your power to impose vaccine mandates because you think mandates would have saved the lives of hundreds of Alabamians and had other positive effects? If you imposed mandates, would you have undertaken to explain and persuade Alabamians about the mandates in a way that would have contributed positively to saving the lives of more Alabamians?

Gov. Ivey's absolute opposition to government mandates means her answer would be, "No. I would not have imposed mandates to save the lives of hundreds of Alabamians," Maybe Gov. Ivey, in answering the hypothetical question that way, would have give reasons for her decision not to save lives, and maybe she would give no reasons for her answer to the hypothetical question.

C. Looking forward
Hospitalizations and deaths are currently declining in Alabama but no one knows for sure about the future, including the possibility of new variants, new vaccines, a repetition of the March through September 2021 pandemic of the unvaccinated, or new, different circumstances needing people to be vaccinated.

The uncertain future includes that American are faced with the protection of vaccines and natural immunity most likely being limited in time, and uncertainty about what the COVID situation will be in the coming months and years if Americans do not get continued protection by means of booster shots or new vaccines.

On a looking forward basis, Gov. Ivey's absolute opposition to government vaccine mandates, with no explanation, comes more clearly in focus by thinking about what the future will bring, and absolute opposition carried forward into the future as being nonfeasance, malfeasance and/or moral depravity. 

D. Misinformation
Special mention is made of the problem of uncontrollable misinformation causing Alabamians not to get vaccinated. "Uncontrollable" means Gov. Ivey can do little or nothing to keep Alabamians from receiving the misinformation. Government vaccine mandates may be a way to override and defeat the misinformation.

E. Educating and persuading citizens about their freedoms
As discussed above, citizens do not have the freedom to do whatever they want, and there are myriads of ways their freedoms can be and are limited by the government. Many citizens strenuously resist limitations on their freedoms by the government, and strenuously urge other citizens to resist limitations on their freedoms. Under the constitution and the rule of law, strenuous citizen resistance to the government limiting their freedom can become a significant problem and may need to be opposed by governmental force.

Elected officials, who take an oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the constitution, from time to time, must act expressly in opposition to citizens who are resisting in extreme ways limitations on their freedoms. Such elected officials almost have a duty, in some situations, to try to educate citizens that they are not free to do whatever they want, and to try to persuade citizens to be more accepting of limitations on their freedoms.

It is contrary to the foregoing if an elected official encourage citizens in believing they are free to do whatever they want. Such encouragement in one situation where it is not so critical that citizens not act on their belief can make it harder for the elected official to oppose citizens successfully in a different situation in which it is more critical for citizens not to act on a belief that they are free to whatever they want.

By not having and/or not giving any explanation of her absolute opposition to government vaccine mandates, Gov. Ivey has greatly encouraged Alabamians to believe they have the freedom to do whatever they want, and may encourage Alabamians to choose not to get vaccinated.

Gov. Ivey could have mitigated, even negated, that encouragement by not expressing absolute opposition to government mandates and by not saying there would never be vaccine mandates while she is Governor. Gov. Ivey could have limited her opposition to the specific mandate in question, explained her reasons for opposing the particular mandate,  and said there could be different circumstances in the future in which she would impose mandates and that citizens should not think they would be free to do whatever they wanted without consequence in such case in the future.

F. Environment of unrestrained political warfare 
In the United States, the two sides are engaged in extreme, existential, political warfare over an alleged rigged 2020 election, over voting rights, and over an alleged insurrection on January 6th to overturn the 2020 election. 

This has spilled over to political warfare over things that seriously affect the lives, health, and economic and social well being of Americans, and the political warfare is having adverse effects on those things.

Where this waging the political war against the other side is happening, it reveals the extent to which waging the political war has become more important than the lives, health and economic well being of Americans.

The political warfare has grotesquely spilled over to vaccine mandates to the potential detriment of the lives, health and social and economic welfare of Americans. I would contend that the GOP side is conducting political warfare over vaccine mandates with the object of there being less vaccination, less reduction of COVID, and poorer performance of the economy, and for the purpose of bettering GOP chances in the 2022 elections. Such political warfare includes encouragement of police and fire fighters to leave their jobs rather than be vaccinated and thereby threatens the safety and lives of Americans with less policing and fire fighting capability.

Gov. Ivey's absolute opposition to government mandates, without explanation, can perhaps be best explained as her carrying out her role in the waging of political warfare against vaccine mandates as contributes to achieving the foregoing GOP objects. I consider that moral depravity.

F. Conclusion
The foregoing sets out why I think Gov. Ivey is guilty of nonfeasance, malfeasance and/or moral depravity in her absolute opposition to government mandates, with no explanation of reasons. 

I have solicited other people to make rebuttals of what I say here, but none have responded.

If no one (including Gov. Ivey) will make a rebuttal or response to what I say here, I think that will tend to give more support to the above case that I make against Gov. Ivey.

IV. Legislators
The case that is made above against Gov. Ivey carries over in a similar way to the legislators who voted to prevent the use of vaccine passports, which are a form of mandate that imposes a cost for choosing not to get vaccinated.

Ultimately, I would contend the legislators voting to prohibit vaccine passports is that such is their form of conducting political warfare against vaccine mandates, with the object of there being less vaccination, less reduction of COVID, and poorer performance of the economy, done for the purpose of bettering there chances in the 2022 elections. 

Sincerely,


11/16/21
Since writing above letter, I became aware that ALGOP 2022 election strategy for there to be less vaccination, less reduction of COVID, & poorer performance of economy, included "behind closed doors" activity that made Alabamians more vulnerable to measles. I append this information here.

11/30/21
I have no ability on my own to get Gov. Ivey, ALGOP legislators, those on right wing talk radio, and others in ALGOP to respond to my above letter, and I have not gotten any response. I have turned to Alabama TV stations to urge them to try to get responses.

See also Dear Gov. Ivey re controlling COVID

Posted by at 1 comment:

Monday, October 25, 2021

Explanation of just about everything in U.S. politics today

The starting point for explaining U.S. politics today are the demographic facts that whites have gone from 83% of the U.S. population in 1980 (79% if only non-Hispanic whites are counted), to 62% of the U.S. population in 2020 (58% if only non-Hispanic whites are counted), and that demographic projections are that non-Hispanic whites will become less than a majority of the U.S. population sometime between 2040 and 2050.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States

It is submitted that these demographic facts and projections are extremely bothersome to tens of millions of American whites.

It is further submitted that the politics surrounding just about every big issue that is occupying the national political landscape is traceable to and best explained by the foregoing phenomenon of the aforesaid demographic facts and projections being extremely bothersome for tens of millions of American whites.

[to be continued]

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)