Loretta Nall Gets to Debate

You may have heard by now, and I know that Dan is reporting it on Between the Links, Loretta Nall will be appearing on the Russ and Dee Show after the debate on October 30.

Ms. Nall, the Libertarian write-in candidate for governor, was snubbed by the sponsors of the October 30 debate and will not get to formally participate with Lucy Baxley and Bob Riley, so Russ and Dee have given her a forum to respond to questions and issues from the debate.

I believe that she will make her appearance on the show on the following day, which is Tuesday, October 31. Keep watching Loretta's blog and the Russ and Dee website for details.

Stun Guns vs. Guns

People have died from stun guns. This is true.

But if you have to pick one, which would you rather police use if they are coming after you? Guns or stun guns?

I wonder which one Ricky Gross would have preferred. I guess it doesn't matter anymore, since he was fatally shot by five Birmingham police officers on Saturday.

Police officers do need a way to protect themselves while they protect us. Otherwise, you end up with dead cops that can't keep anyone safe. Some of you will say that you hate cops and that giving them another weapon is just another way that they can hurt innocent people. (Yeah, bad cops exist. But for every bad cop, there are 100 good cops that sincerely want to keep us safe, and nothing infuriates them more than a bad cop.) But even if your stance is anti-establishment and anti-cop, you have to realize that they're going to have to use a weapon at some point, and which would you rather they use? Which weapon is more deadly?

Keep dragging your feet, Birmingham. More people will end up dead at the hands of the men who have sworn to protect and serve.

Still No Stun Guns for Birmingham Police

I guess that Birmingham's city leaders feel that they'd be more comfortable with their police using guns to stop criminals. After all, we can't have the police using those deadly stun guns, now can we?

Here's the article.

The People of District 54 Win!!!

Loretta Nall has just posted on her blog regarding the Alabama Democratic Party Executive Committee meeting. I agree with her take 100%. It really is a shame that this was an issue to begin with. This, after all, was never about the fact that Ms. Todd was openly gay. It was about race, of all things. The black leaders in the Alabama Democratic Party should be ashamed of themselves. They of all people should know what it is like to be subject to racism, and the fact that Ms. Todd was white and had received the majority of votes in a mostly black district had been the real reason why Joe Reed made her his personal business. Just because the racist was black and victim was white doesn't make this any less or better than a reverse situation.

I am a white woman, and I would be much happier and extremely proud to be represented by a qualified black man or woman than with some of the corrupt white politicians that currently represent me. I have many very close black friends for whom I'd gladly give my life. Two of my best black friends married white men, my cousin married a black man a few weeks ago, and they were met with a large amount of disapproval-- mostly from the black community.

This isn't harmony, people. This is voluntary segregation, and its wrong. The fact that some in the black community don't want anything to do with those "white devils" isn't just an insult to me. It's an insult to everything that every Civil Rights leader ever worked for. It's an insult to all those who wanted equality for us. It's an insult to Dr. King's dream, and to mine. We should be trying harder to bring ourselves together, folks, not tear ourselves apart.

Morning-after Pill Now Available OTC

Here's the article from CNN.com.

I'm not sure how to react to this one, but before I continue, I should explain that the morning-after pill is just a large dose of hormones like the ones in birth control pill. I have no problems with it.

First, the sale of "Plan B" over the counter will cost women more. If it isn't prescription medication, your health insurance won't likely cover it. So instead of paying a $20 copay, we will be stuck with paying whatever the pharmaseutical companies think is an appropriate price for desperate women seeking emergency contraception.

Second, I can understand why birth control pills are available by prescription only. Birth control pills put you at greater risk for a few things, such as blood clots, so a doctor would need to determine if you are in good health and don't have any potential problems, such as high blood pressure. Since these are the same types of hormones, I'm wondering if it would be safe to administer the pill without an exam.

Third, I can understand why it would be important to have this available over the counter. When the clock is ticking, you need contraception NOW. Doctors have a tendancy to not work on weekends, so calling in a prescription isn't always an option. But then, having a ready stock in emergency rooms and clinics that would be open on weekends doesn't sound like too big a deal.

So, like I said, I'm not sure where I stand on this one. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Judge Orders Removal of Hicks Song From iTunes

From the Hollywood Reporter:

"American Idol" winner Taylor Hicks has obtained a temporary injunction barring his former producer from releasing a song the gray-haired crooner wrote and recorded almost a decade ago.

Here's what I don't get. Taylor Hicks is one of those guys who is nice beyond nice. He really does care about his fans. There is no reason why he wouldn't want his fans to hear an early version of one of his songs. So why the sudden turn into Lars Ulrich?

A friend of mine, who used to be in a band and had signed a record deal, said this to me at one point: A recording contract is the single best way to end your career as a musical artist. What I'm saying is that this doesn't sound like Hicks is the one behind this situation. This smacks of a record company decision.

When you are signed by a recording company, there is a general "shut up and put up" mentality regarding the artists that they sign. You record what they want you to record. You do what they want you to do. You wear what they want you to wear. You say what they want you to say. After all, they are financing the release of your album.

The problem, as we have seen, is that the record companies don't seem to be in tune with what fans want. The artist doesn't get a say in what's released, and the resulting p.o.s. that is released to the general public under the guise of an album has no real heart and soul in it. You also run into problems, like this one, where the RIAA wants to squeeze every possible buck out of the fans that they can, with no regard as to whether it may hurt the overall reputation of the artist and his relationship to his fans.

Take, for example, my friend. He had released a personally recorded song that he held the copyright to, allowing his fans to distribute the song as free promotion for himself. After signing a recording contract (without reading it), the company gained the rights to that song and threatened to sue anyone distributing an unauthorized copy of it. While my friend is still under contract, no album has been or will be released, and he can't get out of his contract. He no longer owns the rights to his own voice, so recording elsewhere is out of the question. So if anyone wants to listen to the song, their only option is to have an "unauthorized copy" of it.

It stinks, but the recording industry currently holds all the cards and all the congressmen, so the consumer and the artist lose.

Giles To Part From The Christian Coalition

According to John Giles, the Christian Coalition of Alabama will be separating from the national organization because the Christian Coalition of America has become too liberal. That's right. The Christian Coalition of America is too far to the left for John Giles. Translation: Pat Robertson isn't crazy enough for us.

Loretta Nall has posted a challenge on her own blog to find a new name for the Christian Coalition. My suggestion was to use the name North American Missions and Bible League of Alabama. I've actually considered submitting it to Mr. Giles as a suggestion, just to see if he uses it. If I were better at creating graphics, I'd post a picture of my idea for a logo, but I'm not, so I can't. If anyone else is up to the challenge of creating a logo, feel free to email it to me. I might just post it.

My Answers To The Christian Coalition

Another great idea from Dan at Between the Links! He's suggested that we, as bloggers, post our answers to the questions in the Christian Coalition of Alabama survey on our own blogs. For those politicians who are squeamish about submitting their answers to the Christian Coalition so that they might be... ah... edited might consider doing the same. You may also want to publish the following phrase, which I am including below for my own benefit:

The answers to the questions below are for use on this site only. Any use of my responses to this questionnaire are not to be used or quoted elsewhere without my signed written consent.

Legally, I don't know if it will hold up for candidates (or even for me). Perhaps a lawyer will happen upon my blog and correct me. I'm guessing that it couldn't hurt.

Anyway, on to the questionnaire:

Do you support education vouchers that allow parents to choose a public or private school for their children? Yes, as long as these vouchers can be used toward public schools and supplies should such a school be unavailable for the parent.

Do you support public schools teaching that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle? Not necessarily. What I support is schools teaching the definitions of homosexuality and heterosexuality and letting the students decide for themselves what is acceptable or not. School is a place for learning, not teaching social acceptability, stigmas, or prejudices.

Do you support allowing school-based clinics to dispense birth control devices without parental consent? No. Birth control devices are easily available in any drug store, Wal-Mart, or gas station bathroom and are cheap enough for a student to purchase on his own. I don't see why my tax dollars should have to pay for it. I do, however, believe that it's essential for our children to learn proper sex education, which would include the use of such devices, in order to better prevent spread of STD's and unwanted pregnancies that would result in abortions.

Do you support increasing state income taxes or income tax rates? No. As long as rates stay the same, tax income should adjust on its own with inflation. The only instance in which I would support a tax increase is if the public voted and approved such for increased government services, like a new public school system.

Do you support requiring voter approval for state tax increases? Yes. After all, it is their money.

Do you support capital punishment for certain crimes, like first-degree murder? Yes and no. I think it depends on the situation. Most people argue that capital punishment is a deterrent for crime. Crime rates in areas that have capital punishment would actually suggest the exact opposite. I think that there are too many opportunities for error in our court system, and I don't like the idea of accidentally putting an innocent man to death. If there were some way that we could be absolutely certain that the person in question actually committed the murder, and the circumstances were extreme enough, I suppose I might support it.

Do you support prohibiting abortion in all cases, except where the life of the mother is endangered? No, but not because I am pro-choice. I am very much pro-life, which is why I think that government regulated abortions are a necessity. Abortions will happen one way or another, and while I hate losing the life of a potential child, I hate losing the life of the mother in the process even more. The best way to reduce abortion rates is to teach proper sex education and pregnancy prevention. I am highly against partial birth abortions, however, because there is absolutely no reason why they would be needed, even in cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy, because the doctor could simply perform an early delivery, which is actually less risk to the mother.

Do you support taxpayer funding of abortions? No, unless it is medically necessary, in which case it should be handled like any other medical procedure. Medical treatment should not be denied based on your ability to pay, but if you can, you should. In cases where the mother's health is at risk, this would be considered a medical necessity. In other situations, it is a choice, and if you make that choice, you should chose to pay the bill.

Do you support allowing homosexuals in the National Guard? Yes. They can protect our country just as well as heterosexuals, so if they wish to serve, let them.

Do you support allowing adoption of children by homosexuals? What I support is allowing adoption of children to two-parent homes. Studies have shown that children of homosexual couples grow up just as well adjusted as those raised by heterosexual couples and better adjusted than those raised by a single parent. The conclusion is that children raised by two parents, regardless as to gender or sexual orientation, are better adjusted than those raised by a single parent. My belief is that raising a child is hard, and having my husband help is priceless. Either way, I've seen single parents that are more than capable of being excellent parents. It simply depends on the situation, but one thing is certain, sexual orientation has no bearing on what makes you a good parent. I refuse to believe that a child is better off with Joe Welfare and his wife because they can have sex than he would be with two loving, caring, well-off lesbians. I guess that's a yes.

Do you support tax credits for the poor and middle class in need of purchasing private health insurance? Absolutely. Excellent medical care is something that should be provided to every American.

Do you support rewriting the state constitution? Yes. Take that Roy Moore.

Do you support legislation to prohibit the use of compulsory union dues and fees for political causes and candidates opposed by union members? I don't like lobbyists of any flavor, so yes. Sorry, AEA.

Do you support establishment of gambling in the state, such as video slot machines, high-stakes electronic bingo, casino/riverboat gambling, pari-mutuel betting and off-track betting? No. I think it's a regressive tax on the poor. My question to the Christian Coalition of Alabama would be this: Do you support the same in the state of Mississippi?

Would you prohibit state grants for art that is obscene, pornographic or anti-religious? No. I'd prohibit state grants for art, period. Art is self expression, and the nature in which the artist chooses to express himself is up to him. Gallery owners have the right to choose what they display. Patrons have the right to choose what to buy. The art industry is self-supporting and self-regulating, and the state has no business spending taxpayers money on it. However, I heavily support the teaching of the arts in public schools.

RNC Ad Lies

FactCheck.org reported last night on the latest RNC attack ad, available on the GOP website. The ad appears on a page with the words "get the facts" in a few places, but the page offers some creative editing that would put "Rather-gate" to shame.

First noticed by several bloggers was an interesting photograph of Howard Dean. (The photographs, including the undoctored version, are shown as part of the FactCheck article.) The photograph is taken from Dean's January 2004 "I have a scream" speech. In the RNC version, some slight shading gives the impression of a Hitler mustache. After being called out on the doctored photograph, the RNC later posted a cleaned up version, but you can view all three images on FactCheck's website.

The main problem with the ad, however, is that it seeks to grossly mislead, if not outright deceive its audience by taking a quote from John Murtha out of context. The quote featured in the ad is John Murtha saying, "We're more dangerous to world peace than North Korea or Iran."

What he actually said was this: "Fifty-six per cent of the people in Spain think it's more dangerous, the United States is more dangerous in Iraq than Iran is. Every one of our allies think that the United States being in Iraq is more dangerous to world stability and world peace, every one of our allies, Great Britain, every single country, they think it's, we're more dangerous to world peace than North Korea or Iran. That says something."

Kind of changes the meaning, doesn't it?

The ad makes it sound as if Murtha is saying that he believes we are more dangerous to world peace than North Korea and Iran. What he's actually saying is that our allies believe that we are more dangerous to world peace than North Korea and Iran. The ad mischaracterizes Murtha in an attempt to make him and fellow Democrats seem seethingly anti-American.

Now, this to me seems childish. While Dems have no room to talk when it comes to attack campaigns, the Republicans seem to have gotten steadily worse. If it ain't Twinkle buying plane tickets, it's the RNC painting a Hitler-stache on Howard Dean. Meanwhile, I'm ready to lose my lunch over this senseless crap.

This has got to stop, people!

Here's To Democracy!

The Staunch Moderate has recently posted about Iraq's newest political party-- Al Qaeda.

Be careful what you wish for, folks.

Baxley Proposes State Minimum Wage Increase

The Birmingham News reported the following this morning:

Citing rising costs of gasoline and child care, Democratic Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley said Wednesday that she would work to raise the minimum wage in Alabama next year from $5.15 to at least $6.15 an hour, if she's elected governor.

Say what you will about Baxley. At least she's talking about valid campaign issues. My respect has gone up a notch for her. Is it enough to make me vote for her? Probably not, but I do appreciate that she hasn't released a campaign commercial that equates Bob Riley with Tom DeLay and Ted Stevens.

Now, I doubt that she can promise such, since this would have to first be passed by the legislature, but it's nice to think that she would fight for such a change after the U.S. Congress voted it down and voted for a raise for themselves.

I would very much like to hear what the other two main candidates have to say on the issue, as this is something that I feel affects many in the state of Alabama.

I'm a capitalist and a conservative on most matters, but the "trickle down" economy created by the president doesn't seem to be working. For the most part, it depends on those at the top to be less stingy with their profits so that they share the wealth with their employees. So far, it hasn't worked, so I'm beginning to believe that we should try a "trickle up" strategy again.

I've heard about how our economy is doing great. Hooray for the economy. But the truth is that I do my family budget. When I see that the cost of living is going up and our family income is staying the same, I don't see a good economy. The only people this "good economy" seems to be benefiting are the big businesses and those who already have a lot of money invested. For those of us still getting started, it sucks.

I've heard about how an increase in minimum wage will only affect those working a minimum wage job. Not so. What I have experienced is that people don't want to be paid an entry level salary if they are skilled and experienced. Your employees will go elsewhere if you can't offer a competitive salary. In an effort to retain those workers, companies will offer a better wage to their employees who are at the next step up the ladder, and then the next step, and so on. It trickles up to all of us eventually.

I've heard about how this will seriously cut into the profits of businesses. That isn't necessarily so, either. Big businesses may see some cuts in their bottom line, but then many have been seeing record profits lately. (As for Ford and GM, I have little sympathy for companies that keeps pumping out gas guzzlers when the public is demanding, and the competition is supplying, the polar opposite.) Eventually, however, this will benefit companies again. As Americans get more money, they will spend more money. What if they invest it instead? Doubtful, considering the trends of previous years. More likely, they'll rack up more debt, but then that will be a problem of their own making.

So that's my view on economy: People are more likely to spend than companies are likely to share. It's only my opinion, and I base it on my own experiences, which are limited due to my age. But I'm very interested in what others may think about this.

Dan on Twinkle

Dan over at Between the Links has an idea as to why the Alabama GOP's chairwoman is being such a jerk lately. Twinkle recently invited Howard Dean to Alabama and offered to buy him a plane ticket. This wasn't your average nice invitation, either. It was done in sarcasm and rudeness to imply that Dr. Dean wouldn't dare come to Alabama because Democrats should be ashamed of him. Since then, she's extended her invitation to Senator John Kerry and Senator Hillary Clinton, asking them to come to Alabama and show support for Lucy Baxley, the Democratic nominee for governor. This is what Dan had to say:

"The idea here is obviously to tell the voters that voting for the Alabama Democratic Party, and Lucy Baxley in particular, is like voting for John Kerry. I think Twinkie’s got a decent point, but these press releases are just the worst way of going about it. Coming after the Riley attack commercials, the Alabama GOP sure have been acting like a bunch of 5-year-olds lately."

I agree completely. I also agree with his suggestion that the Alabama Dems should respond in kind. I'd love to see them extend their own invitation to Scooter Libby, Tom DeLay, and Duke Cunningham (to name a few).

Better yet, since the Christian Coalition seems to be so fond of the GOP, why not ask Pat Robertson to come and speak for the Riley campaign? Considering Robertson's record, it's guaranteed to not be boring.

"Peace be with you."

I'm no fan of Rep. Alvin Holmes (D - Montgomery), but I can only chuckle at his latest stunt. Why? Because it's something I wouldn't mind doing myself. From the Birmingham News:

"The Christian Coalition of Alabama claims allegiance with heaven, but [Holmes] on Monday told the group's leader to go some place warm and fiery."

Before I go into why Rep. Holmes would have said such a thing, let me go over my own issues with the Christian Coalition of Alabama:

Let's say that candidate A and candidate B both answer the same question with the same answer, "I do not support controversial issue C except in extreme circumstance D." Now, let's say you want candidate A to win the election. You distribute literature to potential voters that says that candidate A is against controversial issue C and that candidate B is in support. Both are not necessarily wrong, but they aren't necessarily true, either. The Christian Coalition isn't the only guilty party, either. Similar "voter guides" are distributed by dozens of special interest groups during every election, and I don't like any of them. It's why I advise simply calling campaign offices to ask a politician where he stands on an issue.

My other issue with the Christian Coalition is that I feel they don't accurately represent the best interests of Christians. Then again, most Christians (even Evangelicals) don't agree with Pat Robertson, but these same Christians will vote for the candidate that the Christian Coalition endorses without realizing that the group was founded by Rev. Pat. (Once again, I advise voters to educate themselves, but I have a sinking feeling that if Fred Phelps were to start an organization with the word "Christian" in the name and distributed literature, most Christians would vote for whomever that group told them to.) The Christian Coalition of Alabama, in particular, was practically caught with their hands in the cookie jar when they were accepting "donations" from gambling interests. We can only guess who else might be financially backing the group because they successfully lobbied against legislation in Alabama that would require special interests to disclose their funding. (I suggest having the NSA tap their phones and look through their banking records. I mean, they seem very secretive as to the source of their funding, so there's no telling whose interests they are protecting. And if they have nothing to hide...)

This seems to be the issue that Rep. Holmes takes with the group.

"Holmes said the Christian Coalition survey was hypocritical considering past news reports that gambling interests funded some of their anti-gambling work."

But my favorite part was the closing remark that Holmes sent to Christian Coalition of Alabama President John Giles:

"Holmes signed the letter 'Peace be with you.'"

Too Liberal?

Yes, I saw it. Yes, I intended to write about it yesterday after I first saw it. Unfortunately, Alabama Power decided that I didn't need my air conditioning between the hours of 7:30am and 2:30pm, so I had to grab my daughter and go. (But that's another angry rant.)

The thing I saw was the first attack ad from Governor Riley. I'm not impressed. It lists everything that the GOP can find wrong with the Democratic nominee for governor: She's a liberal.

That's it? Was this the best that Riley's team, part of the same team that smeared John McCain in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, could come up with? What's more, they couldn't even come up with one portion of her platform (or potential lack thereof) that would support an argument that Baxley is a liberal! Even if they had, the ad does not state why that is a bad thing. And for that matter, what kind of liberal would she be? Social? Economic? They really should specify these things since, after all, these are the guys who are into big government and big spending and define themselves as "conservatives". This particular ad was brought to you by people who want Bob "More Taxes" Riley to stay in office. Conservatives?

But that's it. Just a barrage of people saying the word "liberal." Because, as we all know, it's true if someone says it loudly enough over and over again. The main argument for Baxley's liberal leaning? She supported John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. A Democrat that supports other Dems. That's a shocker! And the ad even states that she called Hillary an "inspiration," though they don't bother to mention that when she said it, she was referring to Hillary's status as a working mother-- something that Baxley could relate to.

Before I go any further, I should say that I'm not a Baxley supporter. I'm a conservative-leaning moderate, which is why I'll probably be writing Loretta Nall's name on my ballot this November.

This nonsense only makes Baxley look better and Riley look worse. It also insults the intelligence of Alabama voters, playing on the hope that they don't know what the words "liberal" and "conservative" mean. I guess they're hoping for the Frankenstein's monster response: Liberal bad. Conservative good.

Then again, if you remember the read-'em-off-the-notecard approach to the 2004 presidential election talking points, you'll remember that Kerry and Edwards were "out of the mainstream" and "two of the foremost liberal senators of the U.S. Senate." Did anyone ever count how many times those exact words were used, by the way? It worked then. I guess it could work now.

Sorry, Wheeler

I can't believe I didn't notice this before now. I didn't have the link to Alablawg listed on my blog. That issue has now been resolved. (The link is listed to the right.) Sorry about that, Wheeler.

Motivation

Birmingham Police Chief Annetta Nunn just doesn't get it.

Nunn sent out a memo to her police officers on August 2nd telling them not to come crawling back to Birmingham should they decide to leave the BPD for another job in a city with less crime and better pay.

What makes her think that they'd want to come back?

An End To "Judicial Activism"

Question: How can you tell if a politician is lying? Answer: His lips are moving.

It's an old joke, but it does ring somewhat true. Of course, there are times when politicians seem to give us a small taste of the truth, but how can you be sure? Luckily, they've made it easy for us. If it's been repeated at least five times by at least three people, it's probably a lie. The truth is often simple and believable enough to stick the first time.

This is actually an old advertising trick: If you say something loudly enough and repeat it enough times, people will believe it. It works, too. Ever heard of "talking points"? The Democrats are sneakier about it because they at least change up the wording every now and again. But the Republicans, they're easier to poke fun of, since they practically read their talking points from their Mehlman memo during interviews. What's more, the Republicans seem to hold to yet another advertising mantra: Give it a catchy phrase so that people won't forget it, even if they want to.

That's why I'm picking on Republicans today. They've developed the political slogan equivalent to the Goldberg and Associates commercial. (For those of you not from the Birmingham area, I'm referring to a lawfirm advertisement with an annoying jingle to rival kids chanting "I want my Maypo!" that is likely to outlast the Energizer bunny. And yet, even though I hate it, I know their phone number by heart.) The annoying political catch phrase that won't go away is (drumroll please) "liberal media".

The thought is so ridiculous it hurts to laugh at it. The truth is that politicians lie, cheat, and will do anything that they can get away with. The Republican response is to tell you that the person responsible for telling you this is the one who is not to be trusted. "Don't listen to the tattletale because he doesn't like me."

The catch phrase stuck. People remember it, and there is a whole army of Republican supporters who can't seem to quit using it. Perhaps there are some papers or some reporters or some articles that show a slight liberal bias. Bias happens, but it usually doesn't make the facts reported less true. Failure to properly check your facts does, and my real concern with the media is that reporters, liberal or conservative, seem to be neutered beyond asking any real questions during press conferences or doing any real amount of investigative reporting.

I've had it with the Birmingham News and its couldn't-be-more-red-state readers. First, let me state that the News is one paper where I seen something that should have read, "The president responded to..." and instead read, "The president boldly confronted..." (That liberal rag!) Still, I get to read each week from those writing letters about how the News is a part of that evil "liberal media", mostly because they had the nerve to report on something that might make the president look slightly less than messianic or the war in Iraq as less than a picnic. Cartoonist Scott Stantis is a favorite target as well. He is, after all, not allowed to show any opinion in a political cartoon.

Showing the humor of the situation, a friend of mine who is a columnist has received letters accusing him of liberal bias. Why is that funny? My friend is a columnist for the Outdoor Sports section.

I believe it is time that the Republicans retire the phrase "liberal media". It's overused and underappreciated. Perhaps it is simply in its "last throes". Don't be afraid to "cut and run" instead of "staying the course" with this phrase. It's okay to be a "deserter". Just think of it as showing respect for "the culture of life" by improving our quality of life. This is, after all, a "post 9/11 world". I hope you'll be "compassionate conservatives" and spare me any more of these. Don't make me compare you to Hitler.