Saturday, September 29, 2018

Proposed letter for Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh to sign

[As an American, the author of this blog, who has drafted the below, wishes for the below to be put before Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh for their consideration.]

DRAFT

To the United States Senate:

We the undersigned Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh are writing this letter to you related to the confirmation proceedings in the Senate concerning the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court.

We wish to say to you the following:

Dr. Ford made her allegation to the Senate growing out of her sense of civic duty that she believes that sexual assault is a big societal problem, that, if a person has committed sexual assault, it is something that should be considered in whether the person should serve in a public office, and that public awareness of sexual assault should be raised in order to increase societal efforts to prevent sexual assault.

Judge Kavanaugh believes that Dr. Ford did the right thing in making her allegation to the United States Senate.

Our country, the United States of America, has been suffering under extreme polarization and division that is growing worse.

Dr. Ford's allegation against Judge Kavanaugh has significantly contributed to increasing the polarization and division.

Dr. Ford's allegation has resulted in enormous personal pain and fear for Dr. Ford and her family and for Judge Kavanaugh and his family, which personal pain and fear will last for their lifetimes.

Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh and their families bear no ill will towards one another.

Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh believe in the human capacity for growth, transformation and redemption.

Dr. Ford believes Judge Kavanaugh is a good person, as good a person as Dr. Ford thinks she will ever know. Dr. Ford believes that Judge Kavanaugh, as a judge, has been fair to all women and other persons who have appeared before him, and Dr. Ford has no doubt that Judge Kavanaugh will in the future be fair to all women and other persons who appear before him.

Dr. Ford, as a layperson, does not believe that the allegation she has made against Judge Kavenaugh disqualifies him from serving on the United States Supreme Court.

Dr. Ford believes that  the reasons of civic duty that led her to make the allegation to the Senate have been fulfilled at this time.

Dr. Ford believes that withdrawing the allegation at this time will contribute positively to reducing the polarization and division in the United States, and that continuing with the allegation will further increase polarization and division in the United States

Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh believe that the big societal problem of sexual assault needs to be dealt with at many levels and on many fronts in the United States. These include law enforcement and other authorities being receptive to and responsive to charges of sexual assault; continued development of reporting and processing (including standards for due process) of sexual assault charges in schools, corporations and other institutions; educational programs teaching that sexual assault is wrong and how to prevent it; scientific research about how to reduce sexual assault, and increasing public awareness of the societal sexual assault problem by means of advertising programs and by informal means such as conversations within families.

Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh believe that the allegation that was made to the Senate will give more impetus to the foregoing ways that the United States is trying to reduce sexual assault.

While the allegation Dr. Ford made to the United States Senate has significantly increased public awareness of sexual assault and given more impetus to the ways the United States is trying to reduce sexual assault, Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh believe little additional is to be gained by continuing the allegation, and, as stated, continuing the allegation will have the very detrimental  effect of increasing polarization and division in the United States.

While the personal pain and fear resulting from the making of the allegation has been enormous for Dr. Ford and her family and for Judge Kavanaugh and his family, for both of them, that personal pain and fear are mitigated by knowledge of the good that the making of the allegation has made for the United States in its addressing of the big societal problem of sexual assault.

For the foregoing reasons, Dr. Ford withdraws the allegation against Judge Kavanaugh that she has made to the United States Senate, and both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh decline to say anything further to the United States Senate about the allegation.

Sincerely,


_______________________________         _____________________________
 Dr. Christine Blasey Ford                                   Judge Brett Kavanaugh

Dated: __________________, 2018

5/8/22
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, September 16, 2018

How Judge Kavanaugh should have answered question

I respectfully decline to affirm or deny the recent allegation made against me concerning my conduct while I was in high school.

Instead, I say to you the following:

By divine creation, or by evolutionary development, human beings are endowed with a powerful sex drive, which supports the propagation of the human species.

The sex drive yields much that is greatly desired in human life and society.

The sex drive is also a cause of undesirable human behaviors. These include murder, domestic abuse, adultery, preying on children, abuse of power, deceit, financial exploitation, torture, blackmail, vengeful or attention seeking retaliation, infliction of emotional pain, and psychologically violent hatred.

Both the good and the bad of the human sex drive have gone on throughout history.

Society devotes efforts trying to prevent undesirable behaviors that the human sex drive causes.

Currently, we are living through the Me Too movement that is unsettling relations between the sexes in business, government, and other organizations. Me Too is imposing new punishments on behaviors that society is now seeking to prevent.

Me Too is an ongoing phenomenon. It is unknown currently exactly what changes in the relations between the sexes will be brought about, what punishments will be imposed to achieve the changes, and what due process will be provided in imposing punishments.

Me Too is happening in the midst of a revolutionary new world of the Internet, social media, technology, and public attitudes, which are assaulting people's ability to keep anything private in their lives.

There is no downplaying how Me Too is affecting important matters of equality between the sexes, the use and seeking of power by the sexes, how children will be raised, the personal and economic impact of punishments to change sex behaviors, privacy, due process, fairness, and proportionality.

This revolutionary new Internet and technology driven world is exposing to public view not just activity in the sex domain, but also other aspects of people's lives that have been kept private or hidden in the past.

Our society is only beginning to come to grips with the ramifications of this new world's assault on privacy and secrets. All persons are touched by this and may be affected in adverse ways. Many will have views about the way things should be, and will try to influence what shall happen in the privacy destroying aspects of the new revolutionary world of the Internet and social media.

Consider the current controversy about how sexual assault allegations are handled on college campuses. Students against whom sexual assault allegations are at risk of being branded with that for the rest of their lives, such as in seeking employment. Society is confronted with having to decide whether such branding is acceptable, and if that is viewed as unacceptable, society needs to find a way to limit or prevent such branding.

At the moment, the Trump administration, presumably with significant support of some people, is endeavoring to change how sexual assault allegations are handled on campuses to provide more due process for the accused.

The new flyspecking of human conduct that is possible in the revolutionary new world of the Internet, and its associated "see all, hear all, record all" technology, can take "branding" in many directions.

Take acts of dishonesty and fraud. The United States could create a mammoth, publicly accessible data base in which acts of fraud, or allegations of fraud, may be entered on a person's name, which may be accessed, for example, by prospective employers in hiring a person or not.

Other forms of branding may come about. Violent outbursts of people could be reported by observers and entered into a public data base for searching, such as by employers.

Let me return to the human sex drive and Me Too.

The cases of Les Moonves, Jeff Fager and others in business and other organizations during the past year are exhibits of conduct that the sex drive causes and that society currently thinks must be punished and prevented. Besides the personal punishment of the individual involved, businesses and other organization are being deprived of valuable services that the individual provided. In meting out the punishments, society is struggling with defining exactly what behaviors should be changed and what should be proper due process in the imposition of the punishments.

All the types and the quantum of behavior of people that their sex drive causes and that may be caught up by Me Too as being necessary of being punished and prevented will take years to determine.

People are aware of their sex drive, and what it causes or may cause them to do, such as adultery, paying for sex, and taking advantage of situations to obtain sex. People are learning of new costs that may be imposed on them by Me Too regarding conduct that results from their sex drive.

I am a male.  I was and am endowed with a male sex drive, which has been with me during my life. I have learned about the male sex drive, and the behavior it causes or may cause, both from my own person and from being an observer of other males.

Females know best about the female sex drive, the behaviors that it causes, and the uses that females make of sex.

The above that I have discussed has far reaching implications for the relations between the sexes and for other realms of people's lives, and these are much more important to the country than the matter of who is going to fill the immediate vacancy on the United States Supreme Court.

Having talked about the human sex drive, I believe it is fair game also to talk about power lust, undesirable behaviors that are caused by power lust, and how to reduce the undesirable behaviors, including by invading areas that have been previously been kept private and hidden from public view. For example, body cameras might be placed on lawmakers and their staffs to record everything that goes on in their carrying out the public's business.

We are all in uncertain territory about what is going to in fact play out and how things will be in future years.

We all may have some say in what plays out.

Lawmakers may pass laws that affect the matter.

There will be much societal discussion and debate, out of which consensus may arise about what behaviors caused by the sex drive must be prevented, including taking into account the deprivation to society of valuable services, and about what is due process in the imposition of punishments.

People will have ways to speak and sometimes ways to act in order that they may try to influence how the new revolutionary world is shaped. Not all will agree with what another person says or does.

I am entitled to speak and have an opportunity here to act as may affect how the new revolutionary world is shaped.

This I choose to do by taking the position that I will not affirm or deny the allegation that has been made against me of conduct while I was in high school, and that instead I say the above to you..

Members of the Senate Judiciary and members of the United States Senate may choose to take into account, or to disregard, this stand of mine, all as they see fit.

I further aver that I think members of the Judiciary Committee and members of the United States Senate should not be adversely affected in their voting decision regarding me by the fact that I decline to affirm or deny the allegation in question and that I instead choose to say what I have said above.

I will accept whatever the outcome that the Judiciary Committee and the United States Senate decide for me.

Thank you.

5/8/22
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, August 31, 2018

Shadow banned by Twitter

I have been shadow banned by Twitter.

I have determined the shadow banning by comparing the tweets I see under the #alpolitics hashtag when I am logged into my @RobShattuckAL06 Twitter account, with the tweets I see under the #alpolitics hashtag when I am logged into a different Twitter account.

When I am logged into my @RobShattuckAL06 Twitter account, I see under the #alpolitics hashtag my tweets I have sent using that hashtag. When I am logged into the different Twitter account, I don't see under the #alpolitics hashtag my tweets that I have sent using the #alpolitics hashtag.

The foregoing hashtag shadow banning of me being done by Twitter extends to at least one other hashtag and may extend to other hashtags I use on Twitter.

All of my tweets can be seen in my Tweets & replies.

If you look at my tweets in my Tweets & replies, I don't think you will find anything that is objectionable, except I have been doing a lot of tweeting on #alpolitics, and there are a lot of long threads and links to prior tweets and threads of mine.

I understand that, because a lot of tweeters may do various things in "excessive" ways in their tweeting, Twitter needs to control such "excessiveness."

If Twitter is going to have controls over "excessiveness," users need to be able to know when they are doing something "excessively" on Twitter and for "excessiveness" to be subject to some measure that allows users to reduce whatever they are doing "excessively" so that it is no longer "excessive."

One way of doing this, which Twitter is doing, is to limit the number of tweets that a user can send during a specified period of time. Currently the limit is 2400 tweets per day. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-limits.

If that limit is exceeded, I believe the sanction Twitter uses is to not allow the user to send tweets for awhile, in order to bring the user back under the limitation, and the user is aware if the user tries to send a tweet and cannot.

I have not exceeded the 2400 tweets per day limit.

Under Twitter's rules and policies, the only thing I see that seems relevant to my case is spamming guidelines and specifically regarding "multiple duplicate updates on one account." Possibly my tweets that included links to prior tweets and threads of mine violate the foregoing.

Threads allow for expressing things that cannot be done in a single tweet. Threads also allow for tacking on new things that are relevant to a subject that is discussed in the thread. This can occur over weeks and threads could become very long. Alternatively, instead of increasing the length of a single thread, tacking on new relevant things over longer periods of time can be done by starting a new thread in which the first tweet in the new thread gives a link to the previous thread.

I have the further rationale that I am endeavoring to promote two sided discussions on #alpolitics. Participants on  #alpolitics have been resistant to engaging in two sided discussions. I have been using links to prior tweets and prior threads as a reminder to the effect of "this has been brought up before here, and participants were unresponsive and two sided discussion did not take place back then."

The approach of the numerical limitations on numbers of tweets and the sanction of temporarily preventing tweeting may not be practical as regards "multiple duplicate updates on one account."

Unlike the sanction of not being able to send tweets temporarily (which the user is aware of if the user tries to send a tweet), the user is deceived when there is hashtag shadow banning because the user sees the user's tweets when the user looks on the hashtag, but other users are not seeing the user's tweets when the other users are looking on the hashtag. This deceiving of the user by Twitter seems highly objectionable.

In my case, I have become aware of the hashtag shadow banning, so I know it is happening, but I don't know exactly what I need to do to avoid shadow banning and to get my shadow banning lifted. I can only contact @TwitterSupport and ask what I can do to get my shadow banning lifted.



[Update 10/4/18: It appears that Twitter has shadow banned me again. My first experience of Twitter shadow banning me was on or about August 31st (when I originally wrote this blog entry). As described below in this blog entry, Twitter did not notify me of the imposition of the shadow ban (which I discovered on my own), Twitter Support never tweeted me back after I sent the tweet set out at the end of this blog entry, and Twitter did not notify me when it lifted the shadow ban, which Twitter did a couple of days after the ban was imposed. The current shadow ban is impairing my efforts to quell the Kavnaugh furies. See Proposed letter for Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh to sign. For follow up of what I am doing about current shadow ban, see Twitter shadow ban follow up.]


[Update 10/7/18: With no sense of when Twitter will lift shadow ban, I am turning to Facebook to communicate and am trying to add apt Facebook friends.]


Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Will healthcare bankrupt U.S.?

[HEAL Alabama (Healthy Eating, Active Living) is a nonprofit, 501 (c) (3) organization based in Alabama whose mission is to measurably improve children’s health and reverse the growing epidemic of childhood obesity.]


From: Rob Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 3:56 PM
Subject: Will healthcare bankrupt the United States?
To: healmystate@gmail.com

Dear H.E.A.L.,

For the past two years, our country has lived with one political side hellbent to "repeal and replace" Obamacare, the other political side trying to stand athwart that, and Trump and the Republicans doing piecemeal dismantling of Obamacare.

This leaves the healthcare system a mess in 2018, with no sign that our broken, polarized Congress has any capacity to do its job for the American people regarding healthcare.

Further, this is in the context of a looming national healthcare crisis growing out of, among other things, obesity, diabetes and the increased number of more old people who are living longer.

The country's current financial duress in the healthcare domain is only going to grow much greater in the coming years.

How well Congress and the Federal government, and how well state legislatures and state governments, will be able to get their acts together and manage the ticking healthcare time bomb is uncertain. There is reason for a lack of confidence.

I am not in any position of authority and I have no healthcare policy role, public or private.

Nonetheless, in connection with the 2017 special Senate election in Alabama, I undertook to try to engage the candidates, academics, and representatives from the healthcare industry, etc., to have public discussion of their views about what should be done regarding health care reform. You may learn more about what I tried to do at http://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2017/06/health-care-symposium.html.

This effort I made in 2017 went nowhere.

H.E.A.L. is trying to make a significant, long range contribution on the healthcare front in Alabama. The health benefits and the healthcare costs savings to be achieved from H.E.A.L.'s programs require sustained active participation by parents, children, teachers and others, and are being only very slowly realized.

It is probably hard to get elected government officials to incorporate, in their campaign platforms and in their policies, a strong call on the people that the people need to alter their ways and habits that affect their health. If a politician harks too much on that, the voters may not vote for him or her, and hence the politicians and elected officials may not do strongly worded messaging to the people about what they need to do about their health, as H.E.A.L. would like to see done.

My reason for this email to H.E.A.L. is that I wish to resurrect in 2018 the effort I made in 2017 to engage the candidates, academics, and representatives from the healthcare industry, etc., to have public discussion of their views about what should be done regarding health care reform.

I see from H.E.A.L.'s listings of staff, Board, advisors, partners and sponsors that H.E.A.L. has many contacts in Alabama government, universities and industry related to healthcare. While it may be wishful thinking, these contacts might be very supportive of the healthcare symposium idea I tried to get going in 2017 and be helpful in getting a healthcare symposium sponsored and organized this year.

If this is so, and names can be provided to me of persons willing to help out, I would be most appreciative.

Thank you for whatever help you can provide me on this.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, April 15, 2018

AG candidates' issues

Below are the "issues" statements or other material from AG candidates' websites.

Steve Marshall
Opioid crisis
Forging a path forward to address the opioid epidemic in Alabama has been a hallmark of my first year in office. Last summer, Governor Kay Ivey appointed me as co-chair of her Alabama Opioid Overdose & Addiction Council. After six months of in-depth research and discussion by the Council, we reported our recommendations to Governor Ivey. Now, we are getting to work on the implementation of those recommendations.
As the Council’s work highlights, a multi-faceted problem requires creative and diverse solutions. The partnership we have established between law enforcement, mental health, and public health is foundational, but this alliance must be expanded to include both the faith and education communities.
Through my position as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of this state, it is my unique responsibility to ensure we are effectively dealing with the trafficking of both pharmaceuticals and illegal drugs. We are ramping up our ability to combat this trafficking through increased coordination and data-sharing with federal partners and providing new resources to our local partners through our new cybercrime lab. Because much of the trafficking of the most dangerous opioids--fentanyl and Carfentanil--occur online, our new lab is a critical tool in this fight.

Immigration
Illegal immigration is a growing problem for our state. It is the government’s first responsibility to enforce the law and ensure the safety of our citizens. Stopping the flow of illegal immigrants through our borders is the first step in achieving that goal. I am also committed to the prosecution of illegal immigrants who commit crimes in Alabama.
In my first year in office, I have taken these steps to combat illegal immigration:
  1. Fought for President Trump’s travel ban designed to protect all Americans from the influx of immigrants from countries that pose a security risk to the U.S.
  2. Joined President Trump’s effort to put an end to sanctuary cities
  3. Demanded an end to Obama’s executive amnesty and insisted that the rule of law be upheld.
Federal Overreach
Our Founders knew that an out-of-control federal government would be the enemy of freedom. That’s why the Constitution gives “few and defined” powers to the federal government and reserves for the States “all the objects which...concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people…” This balance of power, federalism, was greatly disrupted during the Obama Administration but with a new Administration in place, we have an opportunity to reclaim our state sovereignty.
Alabama has been uniquely affected by federal overreach on issues affecting private property. I am currently leading a battle in the U.S. Supreme Court against a federal regulation that would give the government power to use any private land that the federal government deemed necessary to protect an endangered species. In the process of this lawsuit, we have also worked successfully with the Trump Administration to get these burdensome rules rolled back.
I agree with the late Justice Scalia, “it won’t work if we don’t believe in federalism.”

Violent Crime
Violent crime in Alabama is at a 20-year high. In fact, data shows us that a violent crime is committed every 21 minutes across our state. That’s why I launched my “Initiative on Violent Crime” with the slogan “Reclaim. Restore. Revive.” I am determined to reclaim our neighborhoods from the scourge of violent crime, restore the rule of law, and ultimately, see these communities revived.
We are accomplishing these goals through targeting our worst-hit areas, establishing strategic partnerships with federal, state, and local law enforcement, renewing investments in crime-fighting resources and increasing training opportunities for those on the front lines.
We are also listening to the needs of victims of violent crime. As a result, we advocated for and secured passage of the Fair Justice Act to ensure that capital murderers are limited in their ability to file endless frivolous appeals that cause families to relive their horror again and again, while losing faith in the justice system.
We are having great success and are dedicated to winning this fight. With our friend and partner, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, at the helm of our federal crime-fighting agencies and a career prosecutor leading the Alabama Attorney General’s Office, criminals should be on notice. We will not tolerate this menace to our citizens.

Human Trafficking
Not only is human trafficking a global tragedy, it is heartbreakingly present even in our own state of Alabama. It is hard for us to fathom that such a vile practice as slavery exists in our midst. Traffickers target those who are most vulnerable, using threats and torture to wear their victims down and render them powerless to seek help. I stand ready to prosecute these cases and see this horrible crime punished. I am also fighting to ensure that those in law enforcement have the training and resources that they need to deal with these horrific crimes. Together we can save victims, one at a time, and reduce the terrible suffering caused by trafficking.

2nd Amendment
I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and to vigilantly protect the rights of the people, including the Second Amendment. Our Second Amendment rights are constantly under siege from the liberals and their footholds in federal agencies. I have demonstrated my commitment to protect the rights of gun owners in federal and state courts and to push back on unnecessary restrictions on gun manufacturers. I will continue to be a champion of the Second Amendment on behalf of all Alabamians.

Ethics
Cracking down on government corruption is vital to public confidence and the welfare of our our state. I have worked to bring more transparency to government by building on the Alabama Ethics Act. We need honest people to serve and we must close loopholes that would allow for corrupt individuals to profit from their government service. It is my highest priority to ensure that those who serve the people of Alabama do so with the utmost integrity.

Standing up for Life
We must speak for those who cannot speak for themselves--we must fight for the unborn. I have a career-long record of fighting for life in the courts and in the legislature. One of the biggest victories in my professional career has been drafting and advocating for the Brody Act—a law that makes it possible to prosecute offenders for two crimes if they kill or injure an unborn child during an attack on the unborn child’s mother. After that law passed, I became the first prosecutor to secure a death sentence (for a man who had murdered his pregnant wife) under the Brody Act. Amazingly, when this landmark case was on appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court, I had the privilege of defending that conviction in my role as Attorney General.
I have also fought for and won First Amendment protections for pro-life speech, defended Alabama’s law on parental consent for abortions, supported other states’ laws that would prohibit late-term and discriminatory abortions and battled the ACLU to ban the gruesome practice of dismemberment abortions.


Alice Martin
2nd Amendment
I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and our right to bear arms. I’ll fight against any state or federal legislation that seeks to undo or preempt Alabama’s open and concealed-carry laws.
As a federal prosecutor my office prosecuted hundreds of federal firearm violations with ATF and local law enforcement. This reduced violent crime, which is now on the rise. I’ll work to enforce current laws – not add new restrictions to law abiding Alabamians – to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, criminals and the mentally ill.
As a lifelong gun owner, hunter and NRA member, I’ll fight any move by liberal Democrats and Republicans to limit our rights to own a gun and defend our families.

Corruption Ends Here
I have focused much of my 20-year career as a state and federal prosecutor on fighting corruption in government. As United States Attorney for 31 counties of north Alabama, I formed the North Alabama Public Corruption Task Force with former Alabama AG Bill Pryor and obtained 140 federal corruption convictions and was named a “Top 10 Prosecutor in the U. S.” by Corporate Fraud Reporter.
As Chief Deputy Attorney General for Alabama from 2015-2017, I worked on the prosecution team that prosecuted Speaker Mike Hubbard, as well as led the grand jury investigation into former Governor Robert Bentley. I increased resources to prosecute public corruption in the Alabama Attorney General’s Office by more than 200%. If elected to serve as your Attorney General I will continue that work to follow the facts and hold corrupt government employees and officials accountable to their oaths of office.
Corruption creates an unlevel playing field for law abiding businesses and is costly to taxpayers. I will work to clarify Alabama’s Ethics Law and hold entities accountable to the Alabama Open Records Act because sunshine is a disinfectant. Public service is not about private gain. Integrity and ethical behavior matters and no one is above the law.

Stop Illegal Immigration and Sanctuary cities
I stand with President Trump as a strong supporter of enforcing our immigration laws! The U.S. is a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws designed to protect our borders and our citizens. I oppose sanctuary city policies that ignore immigration laws and release criminal aliens back into a community. This liberal policy has illegally released thousands of criminals into American communities. It puts law-abiding citizens and undocumented immigrants at risk.
I will fight against any movement of a city or county in Alabama to become a sanctuary jurisdiction, and that risk your safety by becoming one.

Opioid Crisis
Fact: In 2017, 60,000 Americans died from drug overdoses and two-thirds were linked to opioids. Two deaths a day occur in Alabama due to an overdose. Alabama has the highest number of opioid prescriptions per person than any other state!
Almost everyone in Alabama knows someone whose family has been impacted by opioid addiction or an overdose. As a prosecutor and nurse I know we cannot prosecute our way out of this crisis. It will require a multi-discipline approach of prevention through education, medication-assisted treatment, and law enforcement.
Research shows that 40% of people who take opioids for more than 30 days become addicted. I’m proud to have successfully advocated for mandatory controlled substance prescribing education for physicians starting January 1, 2018, and mandatory checks that trigger  the Alabama Prescription Drug Monitoring Program database in order to combat doctor shopping and drug diversion.
If we do not make a positive impact now, we can expect an increase in ‘pills to needles’ abuse. Heroin addiction will continue to rise as well because the DEA links 80% of heroin addiction to prescription drug abuse. Fentanyl deaths will continue to rise. There were 247 drug overdoses in Jefferson County, Alabama alone in 2016, an increase of 12% over 2015. The trend in this public health issue is alarming and touches people of all ages, but especially people in their 30-50s, which yields a lot of ‘collateral damage’ with the number of children impacted.

Pro- Life
I oppose abortion. Life begins at conception and should be protected. I am committed to protecting the rights of unborn children except in cases of rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother.
As a mother of three daughters and a nurse, I care about the health of the unborn baby and the mother. I support women’s safety through education and funding of community health centers, so they have real choices and can avoid unwanted pregnancies.
As Attorney General I would support and defend the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, to prohibit abortion after 20 weeks. I will fight liberal attempts to allow abortion on demand and fight to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which bars federal funding of abortion.

Federalist – States’ Rights
As Attorney General, I will fight to protect our States’ rights, under the Tenth Amendment from federal government overreach. This includes fighting for our religious liberties that have been under constant attack from liberals and out –of- state groups. We cannot allow big government policies and the liberal agenda to supersede the laws that Alabama lawmakers have put in place and which reflect our values.
It is the responsibility of the state to enforce the Constitution to manage the federal government. While serving as Alabama’ Chief Deputy Attorney General in 2016, we fought and won an injunction against Obama’s transgender bathroom mandate that would have required Alabama schools to allow students access to restrooms and locker rooms based on their gender “identity” rather than their sex, or we would have lost federal funding. We must push back against these liberal agenda items that seek to destroy the moral fiber of our country.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests”.
-Patrick Henry

Stop Human Trafficking
Fact: Human trafficking is the second most profitable illegal activity in the world and the superhighways – I-20 and I-65 – run through Alabama making it a target rich environment for this form of modern day slavery.
I have prosecuted sex trafficking cases and I know it is happening to children and adults here in Alabama. In the past 10 years, over 377 victims have been identified where the use of force, fraud or coercion to get labor or commercial sex act has occurred.
I will work with state, local and federal law enforcement officials to provide training and prosecution to combat human trafficking. I will work to form an alliance with schools and private businesses to increase awareness of the issue and to prevent and detect trafficking along our interstate highway corridors.


Chris Christie
Priorities
As Attorney General, Chris will work to protect the people of Alabama. Chris defended our most vulnerable seniors when the federal government sued a hospice provider because patients weren’t dying fast enough according to a federal “expert.”
Chris will increase consumer protection and take on big corporations that take advantage of Alabamians. When insider deals ripped off Alabama state employees’ supplemental retirement funds, Chris filed a case that brought justice and full compensation to the employees in the retirement plan.
Chris will also be a leader on behalf of victims’ rights. As an attorney, he’s represented and won for victims of fraud. For example, Chris helped an elderly, indigent woman recover the money stolen by a phony contractor who she had paid to fix her roof. Likewise, Chris will stand up for the victims of payday lenders and work with the legislature to put a stop to predatory lending practices in Alabama.

Values
Chris is committed to protecting and cultivating our next generation. Chris knows every child is an investment and he will fight to support and protect our youth, making the internet safer for children and teens by protecting them from predators.


Chess Bedsole
Republican lawyer and former criminal court judge, Chess Bedsole spent the last couple of years working with President Donald Trump and U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, first to secure the White House and then serving as senior counsel to the incoming Department of Justice. During this time, Chess worked to rewrite Obama executive orders and implement the policies of Trump and Sessions. His focus included securing the border, taking unnecessary regulations off the backs of our military, removing barriers to the 2nd amendment freedoms of gun owners and protecting the right to life.
A former criminal court judge in North Alabama, Chess has a record of swift justice. He supported law enforcement efforts to fight drug sales and worked with local charities and churches to help victims of domestic violence. He also cut costs to taxpayers by requiring work or school of young, able-bodied, nonviolent offenders.

Chess is running for Attorney General to aggressively lower violent crime in our cities, cut illegal drug sales in the state, empower our law enforcement community with more resources and less red tape and to restore integrity to the office


Troy King


Joseph Siegelman
I'm here for the people of Alabama because I'm one of you, and my campaign is about bringing the Office of the Attorney General, and all of our government, back home to the people of this State where it belongs..


Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Can the two sides talk?

Situation of two sides not talking
The ability of the two political sides to talk to each other is declining towards zero.

The political and media spokespersons for the two sides speak only to their own sides. The spokespersons slant and misrepresent facts and characterizations as validates their side's positions. The listeners listen only to their side's facts (or purported facts) and their side's extreme interpretations and characterizations.

The situation has deteriorated so that there is ostensibly genuine belief by many on each side that their facts (or purported facts) are true, and contradictory facts genuinely believed by many on the other side are false. There is widespread unwillingness to consider information that would establish that a fact believed to be true is in fact not true. Beliefs in contradictory facts have become unalterable in a pervasive way.

The purpose of political conversation is to address problems and formulate solutions and courses of action. Such conversation cannot proceed without agreed facts. When there are unalterable beliefs in contradictory facts, conversation stops in the face of there being no agreed facts. As a result there is widespread non-conversation between the two sides.

The spokespersons are a major contributing factor to the inability of the listeners on the two sides to converse with the other side. It is unclear the extent to which the spokespersons themselves genuinely believe in their respective contradictory facts or the extent to which the spokespersons  know they are purveying falsehoods and extreme characterizations which are not "fair and balanced".To the extent they know they are doing the latter, the spokespersons would appear to intend for the listeners on the two sides not to be able to talk to the other side.

Regardless of whether the spokespersons are knowing and intentionally culpable or they are stupid in their beliefs, the effect is the same, that is, to render their listeners unable to talk to the other side.

The inability of the two sides to talk to one another needs to be judged for its consequences.

In the absence of political conversation, problems cannot be properly addressed and formulating solutions and courses of action cannot be accomplished.

The two sides not talking to each other heightens polarization in the country and hyper partisanship in Congress, making Congress dysfunctional and unable to act.

Causes of the situation
One cause of the situation is human nature that has an affinity for the stimulation and exhilaration of conflict, participating in conflict, and identifying with one's "team" in the conflict. This needs sides in opposition to each other. This aspect of human nature gets fulfilled in the culture war and political polarization that is going on in the country, and that many in the society seem to desire.

Talking with the other side can lessen conflict. Not talking to the other side keeps conflict going. Thus there is reason the two political sides not to talk to each other.

Not all the citizens desire conflict to the same degree. The extremes desire the conflict more, and the extremes are more in control of the political activity on the two sides, and their not talking to each other is dominant.

Second, it is probably the case that the political leaders of the two sides advantage themselves personally by there being a divided, polarized electorate, and these political leaders and spokespersons foment division, including by speaking to their followers in the one sided ways described above. The more they do that, the more they are elevated and empowered by their listeners who desire conflict.

On the other hand, political leaders who want to lessen division and wish to speak moderately are sidelined.

The media spokespersons also are a contributing factor that grows out of the above affinity that human beings have for the stimulation and exhilaration of conflict. The media is at bottom a commercial enterprise that depends on audience, conflict attracts greater audience, and so the media and their spokespersons pick sides and purvey one sided messaging to their respective audiences in the way described above that keeps conflict stirred and gains audience. The owners of the media  profit from the division and polarization in the electorate, and the owners pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, even millions, to the anchors and hosts on the owners' political news shows.

Information is coming to light that other countries which are adversaries of the United States are employing "active measures" to incrase the political polarization in the United States and endeavor to manipulate the same to the advantage of such other countries.

Can anything be done?
The collective good of the country is not well served by the two sides not being able to talk to each other.

The forces of human nature, and of personal political interests and media commercial interests being promoted by political warfare, are potent impediments to altering the situation of the two sides not talking to each other.

At a minimum, the causes of the situation should be publicized, and the culpable perpetrators (the political and media spokespersons on the two sides who purvey the one sided messaging) need to be called out. They need to called out either for their stupidity if they believe what they say, or be forced to acknowledge they do not believe what they say but they say it nonetheless to further their personal interests and not for the good of the country.

All TV political talk shows, and their anchors and hosts, are not equally culpable in fomenting division and polarization. They should be judged comparatively, those shows, anchors and hosts who have more egregious practices should be harshly called out.

Also people need to think more about the "active measures' of other countries who are adversaries of the United States and are endeavoring to increase and manipulate to their advantage the political warfare in the United States. The spokespersons for the two political sides need to forge a joint recognition of the threat and harm to the country and join hands to defend against the "active measures" programs of the other countries.
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, February 11, 2018

Let's talk guns

[2/14/18 Scroll down for survey that AL law enforcement is being asked to respond to]

There have been horrific shootings going on in the United States for years.

There have been untold efforts to have conversations about more effective gun control.

According to Wikipedia information, gun homicides in the United States peaked at about 14,000 in 1993. Gun homicides declined to about 8000 in 2001, and in 2013 there were 11,208 gun homicides. Wikipedia says, "Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the U.S. gun-related murder rate is 25 times higher."

Many years of shootings have passed. There continues a regular onslaught on the TV news of more shootings, perhaps more frequently, and sobbing relatives and friends of victims. There are the especially painful killings of school children. There are also domestic violence and workplace shootings. There are scared police who go out to protect the citizens, who don't know what they may be encountering, and who shoot guilty and innocent persons as a result of hyper vigilance that the police may be shot at, and there are the police who themselves are killed in their efforts to protect the citizens.

Possibly a tide is turning, and more and more Americans are saying, please get rid of the guns. I don't want a gun, and this is too much to bear.

Possibly the conversations about gun control are getting more serious.

At the moment, there is no reason to think that the United States is going to reduce gun homicides without much stricter gun control than there is currently. Further, the prospects of increased gun control seem poor at the moment.

So, maybe more Americans want more conversation about gun control.

The reasons for guns would seem to be:
1. Defense of one's own person and property;
2. Resistance against tyrannical government;
3. Sporting pleasure; and
4. Psychological affinities and satisfactions that many Americans have from owning guns.

Let's put to the side for the moment reason number 2 of defense against a tyrannical government.

On reason number 1, defense of one's own person and property, if guns were outlawed, it is reasonable to believe that people would feel much safer and would think they don't need guns to protect their person and property. There would be much more effective policing for protecting citizens if every police call out was not suffused with fear of police being shot. Other advanced countries have increased safety of one's own person and property with gun restrictions.

Collectively, Americans need to decide whether their persons and property are safer in the current circumstances or whether they would be and would feel safer with strict gun control laws.

That leaves reasons 3 and 4. Reasons 3 could be accommodated under a regime of strict gun control laws. Reason 4 also might be accommodated.

The tide may be turning in favor of tight gun control. The tide may be so turning that an amendment to the Second Amendment could get adopted if that was needed to get sufficiently tight gun control.

Here's a proposal: Amend the Second Amendment so individual states could pass gun control restrictions as they chose, and no guns could be brought into the state that would violate the restrictions.

Those persons for whom gun ownership was a paramount source of happiness and well being could move to and congregate in states that had no gun restrictions.

Those for whom gun ownership was unimportant and who thought they would be safer where guns were restricted could move to states with tight gun controls.

Whether a state had tight gun controls or not could affect company decisions about where they wanted to be located. States with lax gun control laws could suffer economically because companies would not locate their facilities in those states in the belief that their employees preferred states with tighter gun controls.

Let that play out as it may, and let people make their choices about how important gun ownership was to them and which states they decided to live in.

That would seem to be a fair compromise.

Update 2/14/18
Survey of AL Law Enforcement re Police One March 2013 survey of what police officers think about gun control

It would be appreciated if offices and personnel in Alabama law enforcement would review the below March 2013 survey by Police One and answer the following three questions:

1. Are you aware of anything happening in the country that would lead you to think there is going to be a reduction of gun homicides to a much lower level than 8000 to 14,000 level of the past 20 years (say down to 3000 or below)?

2. If the Second Amendment was amended and individual States were permitted to ban guns, do you think States banning guns (or having extremely tight restrictions) could achieve much lower levels of gun homicides than they have had during the past 20 years?

3. Do you think law enforcement and safety would be much better in a State in which guns were banned (or which had extremely tight restrictions)?


PoliceOne's Gun Control Survey: 11 key lessons from officers' perspectives





Never before has such a comprehensive survey of law enforcement officers’ opinions on gun control, gun violence, and gun rights been conducted
Apr 8, 2013
In March, PoliceOne conducted the most comprehensive survey ever of American law enforcement officers’ opinions on the topic gripping the nation's attention in recent weeks: gun control.
More than 15,000 verified law enforcement professionals took part in the survey, which aimed to bring together the thoughts and opinions of the only professional group devoted to limiting and defeating gun violence as part of their sworn responsibility.

Totaling just shy of 30 questions, the survey allowed officers across the United States to share their perspectives on issues spanning from gun control and gun violence to gun rights.

Top Line Takeaways
Breaking down the results, it's important to note that 70 percent of respondents are field-level law enforcers — those who are face-to-face in the fight against violent crime on a daily basis — not office-bound, non-sworn administrators or perpetually-campaigning elected officials.
1.) Virtually all respondents (95 percent) say that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.

2.) The majority of respondents — 71 percent — say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime. However, more than 20 percent say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime. Just over 7 percent took the opposite stance, saying they believe a ban would have a moderate to significant effect.  
3.) About 85 percent of officers say the passage of the White House’s currently proposed legislation would have a zero or negative effect on their safety, with just over 10 percent saying it would have a moderate or significantly positive effect.
4.) Seventy percent of respondents say they have a favorable or very favorable opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions. Similarly, more than 61 percent said they would refuse to enforce such laws if they themselves were Chief or Sheriff.
5.) More than 28 percent of officers say having more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public, followed by more aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons (about 19 percent) and more armed guards/paid security personnel (about 15 percent). See enlarged image
6.) The overwhelming majority (almost 90 percent) of officers believe that casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident.
7.) More than 80 percent of respondents support arming school teachers and administrators who willingly volunteer to train with firearms and carry one in the course of the job.
8.) More than four in five respondents (81 percent) say that gun-buyback programs are ineffective in reducing gun violence.
9.) More than half of respondents feel that increased punishment for obviously illegal gun sales could have a positive impact on reducing gun violence.
10.) When asked whether citizens should be required to complete a safety training class before being allowed to buy a gun, about 43 percent of officers say it should not be required. About 42 percent say it should be required for all weapons, with the remainder favoring training classes for certain weapons. 
11.) While some officers say gun violence in the United States stems from violent movies and video games (14 percent), early release and short sentencing for violent offenders (14 percent) and poor identification/treatments of mentally-ill individuals (10 percent), the majority (38 percent) blame a decline in parenting and family values.
Bottom Line Conclusions
Quite clearly, the majority of officers polled oppose the theories brought forth by gun-control advocates who claim that proposed restrictions on weapon capabilities and production would reduce crime.
In fact, many officers responding to this survey seem to feel that those controls will negatively affect their ability to fight violent criminals.
Contrary to what the mainstream media and certain politicians would have us believe, police overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry, would like to see more guns in the hands of responsible people, and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership, or accessibility.
The officers patrolling America’s streets have a deeply-vested interest — and perhaps the most relevant interest — in making sure that decisions related to controlling, monitoring, restricting, as well as supporting and/or prohibiting an armed populace are wise and effective. With this survey, their voice has been heard.

 About the author
Doug Wyllie is senior contributor for PoliceOne, providing police training content on a wide range of topics and trends affecting the law enforcement community.Doug hosts the PoliceOne's Policing Matters podcast, and is the host for PoliceOne Video interviews.Doug is the 2014 Western Publishing Association “Maggie Award” winner for Best Regularly Featured Digital Edition Column, and has authored more than 1,000 articles and tactical tips. Doug is a member of International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA), an Associate Member of the California Peace Officers’ Association (CPOA), and a member of the Public Safety Writers Association (PSWA).Contact Doug at doug.wyllie@policeone.com.


Contacting Police Departments

I live in Mountain Brook. Per emails, I requested the Mountain Brook Police Department to hold a citizen seminar about what police think is needed to reduce gun violence. This request was denied. Others in Alabama should make similar requests to their police departments.
From: police dept <policedept@mtnbrook.org>
Date: Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: Request for citizen seminar re reducing gun violence
To: Rob Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Cc: <barlowd@mtnbrook.k12.al.us>, <hooda@mtnbrook.k12.al.us>, <claytond@mtnbrook.k12.al.us>, <chamber@mtnbrookchamber.org>
At this time, the Police Department is not interested in hosting such a meeting.
Chief Cook
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 9:58 AM, Rob Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sir,
I have not received a response to the below email. I would appreciate a response.
Thank you.
Rob Shattuck
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 7:55 AM
Subject: Request for citizen seminar re reducing gun violence
To: policedept@mtnbrook.orgCc: barlowd@mtnbrook.k12.al.us, hooda@mtnbrook.k12.al.us, claytond@mtnbrook.k12.al.us, chamber@mtnbrookchamber.orgDear Sir,
I am a Mountain Brook resident.
I would like to request that the Police Department hold a citizen seminar in which the Police Department discusses its views about what the Department thinks is necessary for the country to reduce its gun violence.
I am aware of a 2013 Police One survey of what police think about what will reduce gun violence, and a seminar might take that survey as a starting point.
I have incorporated the Police One survey at the following blog link of mine: http://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2018/02/lets-talk-guns.html.
Please let me know whether the Police Department will schedule a seminar as I have requested.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
Cleveland Assault Weapons Ban (added 2/18)
From: Dennis Kucinich <info@kucinich.com>
To: rdshatt <rdshatt@aol.com>
Sent: Sat, Feb 17, 2018 12:21 pm
Subject: Fwd: This is why communities can’t ban assault weapons - let’s change that
Just wanted to make sure that you saw this important message asking for your pledge to support an assault weapons ban - we're having our first rally in Cleveland this Monday, February 19th at noon, on the steps of Cleveland City Hall (601 Lakeside Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44114), followed by a community meeting at the Old Stone Church (91 Public Square). If you can, RSVP to join us here or join the Facebook event HERE. Please share with any Ohio family or friends as well!!!


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Elizabeth Kucinich <info@kucinich.com>
Date: Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 12:49 PM
Subject: This is why communities can’t ban assault weapons - let’s change that

Robert,
Last night Dennis and I attended a democratic meeting. As we walked in we were greeted by a man whom I have known for years from these gatherings, but never had the opportunity to really talk to.

After the usual pleasantries, he opened his heart. “I’m a Democrat. A life-long gun owner. I’ve spent my whole career using and monitoring guns in the military... My son followed in my footsteps and joined the Marines. He’s just returned home from a tour of duty in Iraq.”

His eyes began to tear as he went on. “I have a photograph of the moment my son came home and my granddaughter ran up and clung to him.”

His voice became weak. “And you know what I can’t stop thinking about? That my son had more of a chance to return home from Iraq alive than my granddaughter does returning home from school.”

His words sent shivers through me and continue to as I hear them over and over in my mind. We can lament this fact or we can do something about it.

Cleveland enacted an Assault Weapons Ban. Years later it was overturned. Why was it overturned? Why can’t cities across the United States enact assault weapons bans inside their jurisdiction? Just wait until you read this. It makes my blood boil:

In 1991, Cleveland enacted an Assault Weapons Ban. Nineteen years later, upon taking office, the newly-elected Democratic Ohio Attorney General and NRA champion took it upon himself to lead the charge to defend the NRA-controlled state legislature's effort to strike down the assault weapons ban in the case entitled “Cleveland vs. State of Ohio”.

He succeeded, while simultaneously offering his services to bring a case to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in a decision nullifying the ability of local communities across our nation to make gun laws to protect their people. Home rule was overturned in favor of state government control. It was a massive shift away from #PowerToWeThePeople, to Power To The Lobbyists.

That same person, the man who worked to crush EVERY city in America’s ability to write ANY laws protecting children from assault weapons, is now the current democratic party establishment candidate in this race for Ohio Governor.

This is a defining moment. This is a time not only to be heard, but to engage meaningfully with power structures in order to return #PowerToWeThePeople.

We have investigated the situation in Ohio, and have come up with a plan to push the Ohio legislature to enact an assault and assault-style weapons ban, starting with the introduction of resolutions into as many city councils as possible.  

Dennis’ running mate, Akron Councilwoman Tara Samples, is leading the way in drafting a model resolution and reaching out to councils across the state.

 
Our campaign will assist you in organizing in your neighborhood to enact an Assault Weapons Ban in Ohio. We can set an example for the rest of the country. We will provide you guidance as to how to move forward, how to engage with your council persons, with draft resolutions to introduce, pass and send to the state capitol.


We will hold our first rally in Cleveland this Monday, February 19th at noon, on the steps of Cleveland City Hall (601 Lakeside Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44114), followed by a community meeting at the Old Stone Church (91 Public Square). If you can, RSVP to join us here!
Please join us in our determination to ban assault weapons in our communities. As Ohio goes, so goes the nation!

With love and in honor of our children,
Elizabeth Kucinich

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