Friday, January 7, 2022

AL Secretary of State election



Email sent to Ed Packard, Wes Allen and Chris Horn
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: ed@edpackard.com <ed@edpackard.com>; chrishorn@gmail.com <chrishorn@gmail.com>
Sent: Fri, Jan 7, 2022 4:06 am
Subject: Are you an America First Secretary of State candidate?
Dear Mr. Packard, Mr. Allen and Mr. Horn,
You are candidates (or a possible candidate) running for the position of Alabama Secretary of State in the 2022 election.
On Twitter, The Republican Accountability Project has a tweet with a video showing the NV Secretary of State candidate Jim Marchant saying that there is a “coalition of America First Secretary of State candidates around the country” that is working “behind the scenes to try to fix 2020 like President Trump said.”
You can view The Republican Accountability Project's tweet and the video at https://twitter.com/i/status/1478406073476395014 and also on my blog at https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2022/01/al-secretary-of-state-election.html.
What do you know about this reported “coalition of America First Secretary of State candidates around the country” that is working “behind the scenes to try to fix 2020 like President Trump said”?
Are you such an America First Secretary of State candidate?
Do you wish to be identified as such an America First Secretary of State candidate?
After I send this email, I will copy and paste this email on my blog at the aforesaid link https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2022/01/al-secretary-of-state-election.html.
If you provide any answers to my questions or make other response, I will post the same on my blog along with this email.
Thank you for your attention to this email.
[This email is being sent to Mr. Allen using his email contact form at Contact – Elect Wes Allen as Alabama’s Secretary of State.]

Reply from Ed Packard
From: ed edpackard.com <ed@edpackard.com>
To: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, Jan 7, 2022 9:31 pm
Subject: Re: Are you an America First Secretary of State candidate?
Mr. Shattuck …
No, I am not. Prior to reading your email, I wasn’t even aware of such a thing as an “America First Secretary of State candidate”.
On another note, I understand you are planning to seek ballot access as an independent candidate for US House district 6.
In my approximately 25 years with the Secretary of State’s office, I assisted many independent candidates understand the rules affecting them. If you ever find yourself in need of such an effort, please feel free to contact me.
Best regards,
Ed Packard

Reply from me to Ed Packard 
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: ed@edpackard.com <ed@edpackard.com>
Sent: Sat, Jan 8, 2022 1:05 pm
Subject: Re: Are you an America First Secretary of State candidate?
Dear Mr. Packard,
Thank you very much for replying.
As to my being an independent candidate for US House district 6, what you saw was from 2020. I generated near zero interest in that in 2020. I don't think it would be any different in 2022. Unless something quickly changes, I am not planning on trying again for 2022.
In my view, the most critical matter confronting America is the growing political war over the 2020 election, January 6th, voting access, and holding elections the outcomes of which the candidates and the voters are willing to accept.
Secretaries of State and other election officials are critically important as regards what will happen to democracy in the United States during the next 3 years.
Secretaries of State, whether Republican or Democratic, can either be partisan combatants in the aforesaid political war for the purpose of helping their political side's agenda, or they can work together to defend and advance the cause of having elections and election outcomes in the United States that candidates and voters are willing to accept, as has been largely the case in the United States up and until 2016 and 2020, and that has now been put dangerously in doubt.
Regarding 2020, I thought John Merrill could have been very constructive, such as working with the National Association of Secretaries of State and its other members to produce jointly a NASS statement that the 2020 election was not rigged or stolen, as Trump alleged and continues to allege. I have no idea what John Merrill thought about trying to be constructive in the foregoing way or whether he did anything constructive.
The below are four blog entries I wrote from August 2020 to April 2021 related to elections and Secretaries of State (and which show what I tried to urge on John Merrill regarding 2020):
I would be very interested in your publicizing your view about Secretaries of State, Republican and Democratic, working together to defend and advance the cause of having elections and election outcomes in the United States that candidates and voters will be willing to accept, and any specific suggestions you have for that being accomplished (which suggestions you would endeavor to implement if you are elected as Alabama's Secretary of State).
Again, thank you for replying to me, and I look forward hearing the things you say in your campaign.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

Further emails with Ed Packard
From: ed edpackard.com <ed@edpackard.com>
To: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
Sent: Sun, Jan 9, 2022 3:06 am
Subject: Re: Are you an America First Secretary of State candidate?
My position on election integrity is that the Legislature should mandate post-election procedural audits so that the public knows that election administrators have conducted any election according to state and federal laws and regulations.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Alabama is one of six states that do not require any kind of post-election audit. Our legislature should remedy that situation.
In 2021, to its credit, the Alabama Legislature did pass legislation to require a pilot program for a post-election audit in the 2022 general election. That pilot will involve three counties.
Regarding your call for election officials, regardless of political party, to defend the electoral process, I have long described actors in the electoral process as being in one of two groups: advocates or gatekeepers.
Advocates, in my formulation, are those individuals who support free and fair elections for all citizens. They believe in constructing an electoral system that empowers voters while at the same time demanding that election administrators perform their duties as specified in law and regulations. They know that our choice of election laws and regulations have political consequences, and they want to bend those choices toward fulfilling the promise of self-governance in a representative democracy. They want election administration bent toward effective, efficient and transparent implementation of election laws and regulations in service to the voters, not political agendas (although political agendas obviously are promoted though the way people themselves vote).
Gatekeepers, in my formulation, are those individuals who see their role as being responsible for ensuring only the “right” people get to vote. In truth, they tend to believe in constructing an electoral system geared toward benefiting their own faction or political party. They know that our choice of election laws and regulations have political consequences, and they want to bend those choices toward their political will. They want election administration bent to their will as well.
I am an advocate, not a gatekeeper, and was so during my near 25-year career with the Alabama Secretary of State’s office (and 30 years of involvement in election administration in total). And will continue to be so if elected to Secretary of State.


From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: ed@edpackard.com <ed@edpackard.com>
Sent: Sun, Jan 9, 2022 8:16 am
Subject: Re: Are you an America First Secretary of State candidate?
Thank you for articulating your position for defending the electoral process, which I will interpret as signifying a deep professional dedication to the cause of having elections and election outcomes in Alabama (and in the rest of the United States) that candidates and voters, whether on the winning or losing side, are willing to accept as legitimate and valid.
I will urge TV stations and others to interview you so that Alabama voters can learn of you and your position for defending the electoral process, which America critically needs at this time.


From: ed edpackard.com <ed@edpackard.com>
To: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
Sent: Sun, Jan 9, 2022 9:11 am
Subject: Re: Are you an America First Secretary of State candidate?
Thank you. I went ahead and wrote a new post for my campaign about election integrity. Let me know what you think.
https://edpackard.com/2022/01/09/election-integrity/


From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 6:21:02 PM
To: ed edpackard.com <ed@edpackard.com>
Subject: Re: Are you an America First Secretary of State candidate?
I can only be supportive of post-election procedural audits that help the public to know that election administrators have conducted their election according to state and federal laws and regulations. Your post admirably expresses yourself on the same for Alabama.
With all but six states having audits, it sure would be nice if all the audits have been done for 2020, all the audits support the integrity of the 2020 election, and that information was widely publicized throughout the U.S.


From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: ed@edpackard.com <ed@edpackard.com>
Sent: Sat, Jan 22, 2022 12:46 pm
Subject: Cameron Smith: " Claiming Alabama won the football playoff isn’t the worst lie we want to believe"
Dear Mr. Packard:
Cameron Smith, in his article "Claiming Alabama won the football playoff isn’t the worst lie we want to believe", says the following:
Election results in 2016, 2018, and 2020 reflected the will of American voters. In myriad federal, state, and local elections, the vote tallies again and again upheld what we the people wanted. Administrative failures, voter errors, and fraud existed to a small degree in each of those election cycles. We do our best to catch election criminals and correct our mistakes. Tomes of research by both Democrats and Republicans indicates that we should indeed trust the results.
Do you agree with the foregoing that Cameron Smith says?
If you generally agree with what Cameron Smith says, would you modify what he says in order for it to be how you would express yourself on the subject? If so, how would you modify it?
Do you greatly disagree with what Cameron Smith says, and, if so, what exactly would you say on the subject?
As before, I will post this email in my blog, along with any reply you make to me.
Thanks for your attention to this email.
Sincerely,


From: ed edpackard.com <ed@edpackard.com>
To: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
Sent: Sun, Jan 23, 2022 1:11 pm
Subject: Re: Cameron Smith: " Claiming Alabama won the football playoff isn’t the worst lie we want to believe"
Mr. Shattuck ...
Based on all the information I have, especially as a former election administrator in the Alabama Secretary of State's office, I believe the elections held in Alabama in 2016, 2018, and 2020, do accurately reflect the choices of the voters in each election held in those years, whether we talk about the primary election, primary runoff election, or general election, not mention municipal elections and special elections held in those years. Alabama's election system is indeed very strong and has integrity and reliability. I am very proud of the work that election administrators perform in Alabama, be they probate judges, absentee election managers, members of the boards of registrars, sheriffs, or town and city clerks.
Yes, as Mr. Smith references, every election, whether in Alabama or elsewhere, will be afflicted with errors by election administrators and voters. And yes, we have found in various elections in Alabama, cases of voter fraud, usually related to absentee ballots. But, generally speaking, none of the instances of errors or fraud rise to the level of undermining any the results of any particular election. (There was a case in the City of Evergreen in the recent past, though, where errors in compiling the voter list did lead a federal court order that their municipal election be held again.)
Regarding other states, I have not seen any evidence that their elections are without integrity and reliability. I have heard many allegations and suspicions of election problems in some states, but at this point, from what I have seen and heard, these are just that - allegations and suspicions.
As I have often done during the course of my career at the Secretary of State's office, I encourage anyone and everyone who has witnessed errors or fraud to contact and report that information to the Secretary of State, their probate judge (in the case of county elections), or their city or town clerk (in the case of city or town elections). I also recommend reporting that information to their county district attorney and the Attorney General.
I also encourage them to not only be willing to speak to the officials I just mentioned, but also be willing and prepared to testify at any trial that their allegations may lead to. All too frequently, during my career, I heard from voters who saw activities that may well have been voter fraud, but the voters did not want to testify in court if an investigation lead to prosecution. The most common explanation for their reluctance was their concern about retaliation from individuals , or allies of those individuals, who allegedly perpetuated the fraud.
Our representative democracy is a team effort that includes all of us. Certainly, election officials have a responsibility to perform their job well and in accordance with laws and regulations. Voters obviously have a role in terms of their participation by showing up to vote. But voters also need to let election officials, district attorneys, and the attorney general, know when they witness something that raises their eyebrows and be willing to participate in any investigation and prosecution that may result from their information.
If you have further questions, please let me know. Thank you.


From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: ed@edpackard.com <ed@edpackard.com>
Sent: Mon, Jan 24, 2022 7:33 am
Subject: Re: Cameron Smith: " Claiming Alabama won the football playoff isn’t the worst lie we want to believe"
Thank you very much for your fulsome response, Mr. Packard.
I consider the most pressing national political matter to be the progression of the questioning by Americans of their elections, with the 2022 elections in the crosshairs.
I think America will be in big trouble domestically if the questioning trend grows during the next 10 months, and the 2022 election results are doubted in November and afterwards the way the 2020 election result is doubted.
Many vociferous and extreme Americans are strenuously working to spread and increase doubt about our elections.
The cause of defending our elections needs all the helpers it can get.
I hope your campaign to become Alabama Secretary of State includes many activities, communications and public statements during the next four months that are dedicated to the cause of Americans not having reason to doubt the 2022 elections or doubt the 2024 elections thereafter.
Sincerely,


From: ed edpackard.com <ed@edpackard.com>
To: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, Jan 24, 2022 7:57 am
Subject: Re: Cameron Smith: " Claiming Alabama won the football playoff isn’t the worst lie we want to believe"
I have been talking about the strength of our election processes when I’m speaking to various groups.
Posted by at No comments:

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:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)