Thursday, March 25, 2021

AL.com Facebook town hall

AL.com is hosting a first Facebook town hall today to talk about what’s going on in Alabama’s legislature. https://www.al.com/news/2021/03/alcom-hosting-first-facebook-town-hall-to-talk-whats-going-on-in-alabamas-legislature.html

The town hall will be hosted by Ivana Hrynkiw, and panelists will include columnists Roy S. Johnson, Kyle Whitmire. Dana Hall McCain and Cameron Smith.

The above article announcing the town hall indicates it is limited to being informational for those who are interested in information about what’s going on in Alabama’s legislature.

Yesterday Bill Britt published an opinion piece https://www.alreporter.com/2021/03/24/opinion-are-there-not-things-in-this-life-worth-losing-for/. In the opinion Bill said

Today in Alabama, a candidate doesn’t need to run on bread and butter issues like putting food on the table or better education or improved health care. To win a Republican primary, a candidate only needs to be seen as fighting “socialists,” championing the Second Amendment and being a Trump American with an “America First” agenda.
In today’s politics, problem-solvers have become irrelevant and nearly extinct because base voters prefer an evangelist for far-right ideas, even if the gospel they are spreading doesn’t improve citizens’ lives.
. . .
Alabama’s problems are many, but they are mostly solvable if elected officials cared more about finding solutions than running for the next election.
Many elected officials come to Montgomery wanting to do the people’s business, but far too often, the people’s needs take a backseat to the primary voter’s wants.
. . .
We are in need of political leaders who are willing to ensure that every citizen is represented, not just the ones that elect them, but that would mean losing on occasion.

Bill Britt's opinion piece cries for a call to action.

The host and panelists in today's AL.com town hall should consider whether to incorporate a call to action as part of the town hall being informational.

Posted by at No comments:

Monday, March 1, 2021

Reply to Sen. Tuberville

This is a reply to what Senator Tuberville says that Sean Ross reports in his article today: ‘God’s on our side’: Tuberville says 2022 is final chance to save America from being ‘too far gone’

Among other things that are reported in article, Senator Tuberville says:

“[Y]ou’re going to be shocked what’s going to happen to this country.”
“And it’s already happening,”
“It’s scary,” he added. “I told everybody on the campaign trail, ‘We’re in trouble.’ I didn’t really realize how much we were in trouble. It’s bad.”
“Folks, we’ve only got one more chance,” Tuberville stated. “One more chance and it’ll be too far gone. But, God’s on our side. Pray every day."
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, January 24, 2021

Open reply to Susana Schuler

Dear Ms. Susana Schuler, President & General Manager, WVTM13:

This is in reply to your TV news editorial last Friday on WVTM13.

Your editorial
Your editorial started with your quoting Joe Biden's inaugural words:

We have much to do in this winter of peril, and significant possibilities. Much to repair, much to restore, much to heal, much to build, and much to gain.

Your editorial then referred to Joe Biden beginning "in a time of incredible division and too much hate across our country."

You then said Joe Biden is not the first President to face division and pledge unity, and you quote the inaugural words of two other Presidents, Thomas Jefferson and George H.W. Bush.

You promised that WVTM13 would hold the new administration, and Alabama leaders, accountable for their promises.

You concluded your editorial by urging viewers to absorb the many memorable words they heard and pledge ourselves to be part of the solution. You particularly refer to the words of Amanda Gordon "to see the light, and be the light."

My reply
Just about everyone agrees about the need for more national unity to overcome the crises of health, the economy, race, and violence that the country faces. 

Many think that a huge impediment to increasing unity is that the two sides do not talk to each other, each side has its own set of facts, which is different from the other side's, and that greatly impairs the ability to have the unity that is gained from agreements and compromises and that impairs the government in legislating and taking action. 

(Note: I use the word "facts" but the foregoing applies to "characterizations" and "opinions," which either have some reasonableness, or which are grossly unreasonable and effectively not true. A lot depends on the words a speaker chooses, and how hearers of the words interpret and act on the words. The example that is discussed below will illustrate this.)

A contribution to unity that WVTM13 should make is to counter the foregoing phenomenon by forcing the two sides to appear jointly and test their willingness to say their facts when they know the other side is saying different facts, and, based on what viewers see and hear, viewers will decide whose facts they believe. In this situation, the two sides may back away from the facts they would prefer to say, and say facts that are not so contradictory to the other side's facts.

Take the example of whether the election was stolen from Trump. Many times Trump told his millions of supporters that the election was in the process of being stolen from him and was stolen from him.. 

"Stolen" is better viewed as a characterization (as opposed to a fact) and, as characterization, the world "stolen" is powerfully suggestive to a hearer that the hearer may think justifies certain actions in response. Trump's telling his millions of supporters about the election was being stolen likely contributed to the motivation of the perpetrators of the January 6th attack on the Capitol building as being justified to prevent the election from being stolen.

To build on this stolen election characterization, WVTM13 should press Rep. Gary Palmer and Rep. Terri Swell to look into the station's cameras and answer the questions of "do you think the election was stolen" and "do you think it was wrong for Trump to say the election was stolen." 

If Rep. Palmer tries to evade by saying "there were election irregularities that raised questions, yada yada yada," WVTM13 should answer back,

No Rep. Palmer, no evading the question. Trump used the word "stolen," it is reasonable to think the Jan 6th attackers were motivated by Trump's saying the election was stolen, Trump has been impeached by the House for inciting the January 6th insurrection, and you need to say whether it was acceptable for Trump to have said the election was stolen, or whether that was wrong and it is legitimate for Trump's words about the election being stolen to be taken into account by the Senators in the Senate trial.

If Rep. Palmer refuses to respond WVTM13 should lay out to its viewers what WVTM13 tried to do, and why, and that Rep. Palmer refused to respond. [Edit 3/15/22. Elsewhere I have referred to this as the "empty chair technique."] 

This example of the election being "stolen" illustrates how the two sides having, and saying, different facts (one side saying it was stolen, and other side saying not stolen) contributes to division that impairs the ability of government to do its job.

Very arguably, if Trump had not said that the election was stolen, the January 6th attack on the Capitol building would not have happened, there would not have been a second impeachment, there will not be more division in the country that the Senate trial of Trump is likely to engender, and the government would be more able to do its work for the American people in the coming weeks.

I hope WVTM13 agrees with the foregoing discussion and that it is suggestive to WVTM13 of things that WVTM13 might do to counter the problem of the two sides not talking to each other and the two sides having different sets of facts, and that might help in increasing unity, which the country so badly needs.

9/18/21 Obstructing the prevention of preventable deaths
Gov. Ivey, by opposing governmental vaccine mandates, has obstructed and continues to obstruct the prevention of preventable deaths and preventable hospitalizations in Alabama. https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2021/09/obstructing-prevention-of-preventable.html

You should do a WVTM-13 editorial at this time to help Alabamians "see the light" on this.

10/3/21
The above tweet is the last tweet in a thread soliciting WVTM-13 to help Alabamians "see the light" that, in opposing government vaccine mandates, Gov. Ivey has wrongfully obstructed the prevention of preventable deaths and preventable hospitalizations in Alabama. I don't know whether WVTM-13 has done anything in response to my aforesaid solicitation. Similar solicitations to other Alabama TV stations are appropriate, which I am endeavoring.
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, January 19, 2021

Possible attack from within

 

The foregoing will be responded to in due course. 

[response to be completed]

Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, January 17, 2021

What AL can do about Big Tech

While you are waiting for Big Tech to change, are you open to exploring strategies and programs in Alabama that have the potential of reducing the power and influence of Big Tech in Alabama?


The political problems associated with Big Tech are censorship; facilitation of violence and hate; and disinformation and Fake News.

[to be continued] 

4/20/21 Resuming
The political problems with Big Tech are censorship; facilitation of violence and hate; and disinformation and Fake News.

Those problems are very large. 

Possible solutions to one problem may be inconsistent with or worsen another of the problems, or be violative of First Amendment rights of Big Tech. For example, imposing liabilities on Big Tech for  content which contributes to violence or hate or is disinformation or Fake News necessitates greater censorship  by Big Tech to protect itself. Apart from imposing liabilities, regulating how Big Tech censors content may violate First Amendment rights of Big Tech.

Big Tech is politically powerful, and may be an obstacle to Congress providing solutions that a consensus of the citizens desire but that Big Tech object to.

State legislatures may try to address the problems of Big Tech, such as is being attempted by an Alabama bill that seeks to punish Big Tech companies if they engage in censorship.

There is a veritable conundrum for Congress (or a state legislature) to fix the problems of Big Tech, and a veritable political mountain to climb to do so. 

Sen. Phil Williams' article suggest dissatisfaction with waiting on Congress to fix satisfactorily the problems of Big Tech.

If you are a citizen who feels strongly about the problems of Big Tech, in the face of the very little power you have, you need to decide whether to curse the darkness or to light a candle, and, if the latter, what candle or candles you will light or try to light.

My candles
I think the generic candle that citizens can light is in your own actions, conduct and words, and wherever those interface with other citizens, you endeavor to apply your own brain and your own reason to try to determine what is truth and facts. This includes ample engagement with other citizens who are endeavoring to do the same, with a view to reaching agreement about what is truth and facts.

I have tried to light numerous candles to the foregoing end, which included urging others to join with me in lighting the similar candles. See, e.g., Appeal to AL news directors, October 1, 2019, AL Project Veritas - Impeachment, October 6, 2019,  WVTM13 GOP Senate debate, February 27, 2020, Dear Aunie,  May 8, 2020, Open reply to Susana Schuler, January 24, 2021.

Perhaps these other persons think similarly as I do, and they are trying to light their own candles. If so, I wish they would tell me, and maybe we could light candles together.

Others may not believe in lighting candles like the ones I think should be lit, and in fact obstruct the goal I seek in the candles I try to light. Read, for example, Dear Aunie, and judge for yourself.


See also
Alabamians battling QAnon, Sept. 7,2021

Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, December 16, 2020

New API fellows

Alabama Policy Institute has announced that former former State Senator Bill Hightower, Bishop Jim Lowe, and former State Senator Bryan Taylor have become fellows of the Institute.

I look forward to reading the pieces these new fellows of the Institute put forth on about subjects that they consider of importance in furtherance of the Institute's non-profit, non-partisan mission as an educational and research organization committed to free markets, limited government, and strong families.
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, December 11, 2020

Denouncing ALGOP in Congress

Reps. Byrne, Brooks, Palmer & Aderholt have signed an amicus brief supporting  the Trump backed lawsuit that has been filed in U.S. Supreme Court seeking to overturn election.

On Twitter, I denounced, and I will solicit other Alabamians to denounce, Reps. Byrne, Brooks, Palmer & Aderholt for signing the amicus brief.

I request Gov. Ivey to denounce Reps. Byrne, Brooks, Palmer & Aderholt for signing the amicus brief. I solicit from her staff to have an opportunity to speak to a staff member of Gov. Ivey about why I have denounced Reps. Byrne, Brooks, Palmer & Aderholt, and why Gov. Ivey should denounce them.

It is appropriate for me to provide a written explanation of why Gov. Ivey should denounce Reps. Byrne, Brooks, Palmer & Aderholt.

I will do that here.

[to be completed]

Pending composing my explanation of why Gov. Ivey should denounce Reps. Byrne, Brooks, Palmer & Aderholt (and Rogers, who was added to list of brief signatories), I append here an email from Dr. Mark Elovitz, a friend of mine in Alabama, who has the professional credentials set out at the end of the below email.

From: Mark Elovitz
To: MARK CAR
Sent: Fri, Dec 11, 2020 8:06 am
Subject: Lemmings, Legal Madness & Seditious Abuse
Question: What do you get when you cross a herd of sheep with a herd of lemmings?
Answer: A herd of 106 Congresspersons compulsively rushing over the cliffs of legal madness while wittingly plunging themselves into the abyss of featherbrained incompetence, wretched ineptitude and contumacious insolence.
> If the foregoing sounds harsh, it is. If the foregoing seems partisan, it is. If the foregoing appears unlikely, unbelievable and unfathomable, it is not. In fact, that herd of Republican Congresspersons impertinently, fractiously and pigheadedly signed the President’s notoriously moot and mercilessly meritless Petition urging the Supreme Court to invalidate millions of votes cast for President-Elect Joe Biden.
> Now then, let’s be crystal clear. Mr. Trump has the absolute right to file a legally sound Petition/Brief. Members of Congress have an unquestionable right to lend their names, their respect, their prestige and their honor to the President’s Petition. However, it must needs be unequivocally stated and resolutely asserted that having the right to act does not convey even a semblance of legitimacy, a scintilla of authenticity or a shred of viability to the substance of that Presidential Petition (i.e. Trump’s currently pending Supporting Brief in behalf of the underlying Petition filed by the Texas Attorney General and supported by 17 other Attorneys General ).
> Perhaps most critically, the President’s Supporting Brief combined with the underlying Petition constitute what has been aptly characterized as “seditious abuse of the judicial process.” And, that is the egregious rub. Here’s why.
> Rule 11(b) of The Federal Rules Of Procedure (the rules that apply to pleadings filed in Federal Courts (The Supreme Court and all lower Federal Appellate and District Courts) requires that pleadings (petitions, motions, etc) must be supported by sound grounds. Absent legal jabberwalk, that rule requires that there must be real facts and/or bona fide legal argument based on existing law that underlie the grounds for which the requested relief is asserted.
> Then, also seriously consider that speculation, hypothesis, conjecture, supposition, bald-faced allegations and debunked conspiracy theories do not qualify as “sound grounds.” In fact, when the Court determines that the pleadings have been knowingly or wittingly filed without the requisite sound grounds, then the Court may impose such sanctions as it deems proper upon the offending counsel.
> Considering the abysmal
> absence of substantive facts (evidentiary support or existing law) undergirding Mr. Trump’s current Brief & the underlying Petition to the Supreme Court, the American public might well be prepared for a scathing dismissal of Mr. Trump’s Brief and the underlying petition it supports. Indeed, no court (neither the Supreme Court nor even the most unheralded, most undistinguished or lowliest court in the land) could or should entertain any filing not predicated upon sound grounds.
> Therefore and upon information and belief, the Supreme Court is likely (but certainly not guaranteed) to dismiss the cited pleadings with appropriate derision if not also with sanctions. In so doing, the Supreme Court would be brusquely asserting that American democracy and our legal system will not be cowed by fatuous litigation nor will they be subverted by Presidential authoritarianism, by specious Congressional partisanship or by the vapid protestations of jaundiced, jaded and injudicious legal counsel.
> Premises considered, one is reminded that it was none other than President Lincoln who wittingly urged: “Never stir up litigation. A worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this!”
> Enough said?
>>> M.H. Elovitz, Ph.D., J.D.*
>>> Director
>>> Centre For Strategic Geopolitics

*Dr. Mark Elovitz currently is the Director of the Centre for Strategic Geopolitics, a world affairs think tank. Dr. Elovitz has been a professor of law, a litigator, a U.S. Air Force Officer, a T.V. World Affairs Anchor and Commentator, and was a consultant to the Federal Government on public policy in Washington during the Carter and Reagan Administrations. He has also authored hundreds of articles, essays and other publications on topics ranging from legal liability, enhanced healthcare delivery, religion, and biomedical ethics to public policy, foreign affairs and geopolitics. Dr. Elovitz has been a participant in the U.S. Naval War College's Current Strategy Forum and has testified before the U.S. Congress' Committee On Foreign Affairs. Dr. Elovitz currently consults and frequently lectures on world affairs and geopolitical issues. Singapore's Presitge Lifestyle Magazine 2012 calls Dr. Elovitz a "seminal visionary. https://stratgeopol.blogspot.com/

Also, I post Alabama's Joe Scarborough's brutally stinging denunciation this morning of the106+ GOP in Congress who signed brief to have SCOTUS overturn election.

And I've requested Governor Ivey to denounce Reps. Byrne, Brooks, Palmer & Aderholt

Then there is Jerry Carl, newly elected representative to Congress from the Alabama 1st Congressional district. 

Senator-elect Tommy Tuberville could be so stupid as to do Trump's bidding on January 6th. 

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