The Crook, the Clown Show and Mo Brooks

Today is the primary election day in Alabama for the race to fill the unexpired term of US Senator Jeff Sessions, who was appointed Attorney General by President Trump. The three main candidates in the Republican primary are Luther Strange, who was appointed by former Governor Bentley to temporarily fill the seat, Roy Moore, best known as the judge who tried to put a 10 Commandments monument in the state Supreme Court building, and Mo Brooks, a congressman from Huntsville.

Personally I'm not a fan of any of the three candidates. Ordinarily I would research the lesser known candidates on the ballot and vote for one of them. But the Alabama election rules mean there will in all likelihood be a runoff in a few weeks between the two top vote winners. That's why I am reluctantly casting my vote for Brooks. When it comes down to a choice between a run-of-the-mill politician, a crook and a clown show, the politician wins.

The Crook

Before his appointment, Luther Strange was the Alabama Attorney General. When Trump won the election in November, everyone knew that Jeff Sessions would be part of Trump’s Cabinet, which meant there would be an opening in the US Senate seat. At the same time, the Alabama Legislature was contemplating impeachment of Governor Bentley .

In November (but before the presidential election) Strange announced his office was investigating Bentley. The Legislature agreed to postpone action until Strange's investigation was complete. Before the investigation was complete, Bentley appointed Strange to Sessions' seat. Strange insists there was no quid pro quo, but it shouldn't take a law degree to see the obvious conflict of interest. At the press conference announcing his appointment, Strange denied that his office was investigating the governor, but his successor as Attorney General confirmed there was and recused himself because he was appointed by the governor. After this fiasco, the Legislature went ahead with its own impeachment proceedings. Bentley agreed to a plea bargain and resignation a few weeks later.

The Clown Show

Roy Moore is more principled person than Strange, I will grant him that. But his penchant for needlessly creating controversy disqualifies him as a candidate, in my mind. In 2001, while he was Alabama Chief Justice (an elected position in Alabama), Moore made national headlines by loudly and publicly erecting a 10 Commandments monument in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court building. The pompous way Moore did it (including selling videotapes featuring the installation and his speech) invited controversy. Atheist organizations sued and successfully persuaded a federal court that it should be removed. After Moore lost all appeals he still refused to remove it, resulting in his removal by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary in 2003.

After a few years in obscurity (which included losing a race for governor and flirting with a third-party run for president) Moore ran again for Chief Justice in 2012 and won again. Once again he couldn’t stay out of the headlines. After the US Supreme Court legalized homosexual marriage, Moore instructed county officials not to issue or honor them in Alabama. After numerous court proceedings, Moore was forced to resign earlier this year, just in time to run for Senate. The Senate would be a perfect platform for Moore’s brand of political opportunism: he could make speeches and vote however he wants without having to do any of those annoying things like obey the law as an officer of the court.

If doing public good was the only criterion for Senate, then I would probably vote for the leading Democratic candidate Doug Jones, a long-time prosecutor best known for successfully prosecuting numerous people who committed criminal acts during the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s and were never charged or had charges dropped. But I cannot vote for a candidate who proudly says on his Web site, “I stand with Planned Parenthood.”

So Mo Brooks it is. If Brooks makes the runoff against either Strange or Moore, I will vote for him again. If Strange and Moore make the runoff, I will not vote. If Strange or Moore win the GOP nomination, I will vote for the Libertarian candidate or push through an empty ballot. I am definitely a “never Strange” and a “never Moore” Alabama voter.

Can't We Be Anti-Porn AND Anti-Censorship?

Next time a politician tells you stuff
he thinks you want to hear, think
about Homer Stokes from
"O Brother Where Art Thou?"
(If I knew who to credit with this
awesome illustration I would gladly
do so.)

This week the Alabama State Legislature will hold public hearings on HB 428, a law which proposes to install a porn filter on every Internet-capable device sold in the state starting next year. The law allows for the filter to be removed if the buyer pays $20 to the state (the business is allowed to add a "reasonable" fee). Apparently there are similar laws being proposed in at least two other states.

Let me be perfectly clear: I am against pornography. It is a shame that it is so commonplace on the Internet. The law specifically mentions child pornography and revenge porn. I think all sensible people agree that those are specifically heinous. I am not against people voluntarily installing filter programs on their computers or their children's. In a lot of cases that's probably a wise idea.

But this law is so fraught with problems, loopholes and unexplained realities that if it passes (which it shouldn't, but the Alabama Legislature isn't exactly known for wisdom) it will create more problems than it solves and do way more harm than good.

First of all, the bill requires manufacturers to install the filter. This is really untenable. It is unreasonable to expect even big sellers like Apple, Dell, Samsung, etc., to design specific devices for Alabama, to say nothing of the smaller companies that produce cheaper phones and tablets. They would effectively be put out of business in this state, which would adversely affect the poorest residents who rely on the cheaper devices to access the Internet.

Secondly, the bill says nothing about online sales. There is nothing in the bill that says Amazon and other online retailers have to comply with this law. This is sure to hurt Alabama businesses, as will residents driving to Chattanooga, Pensacola
or somewhere else to buy their devices. There aren't that many places in Alabama that aren't within an hour and a half from some state line.

The law also doesn't address jailbreaking or rooting the device to get rid of the filter without paying the fee. The people who are the real targets of this bill are tech-savvy enough to get around this quite easily. Meanwhile very few will actually pay to get the filter off their device, because who wants to publicly hand their phone across the counter to someone and ask for the filter to be taken off? The public shame will be enough to keep most people away.

More importantly, the simple fact of the matter is that no filter program really works like it is promised to. Filtering software tends to overreach and harm honest users while the real bad guys quickly figure out ways around it. Filters are notorious for keeping helpful information away from people who are in sexually abusive or exploitative situations. If someone can't find a description of what they are experiencing because it is blocked by a filter, how will they know to get out? Believe me, it happens. Abusers have been known to keep filters on their victims' computers.

One thing that is provided for in the law is a means by which people can report offensive material that escapes the filter. Manufacturers are required to update the filter from time to time to meet the concerns raised by citizens. I don't know about you, but I for sure don't want this guy in charge of what I and my family can and cannot look at on the Internet.

Finally, we don't live in a perfect world. People need to be informed about what is going on in the world around them. And sometimes the things they do might not pass muster with an Internet filter. Take, for example, Governor Bentley's affair with a state employee. Several TV and radio stations in the state refused to play the tapes of the lurid conversations for fear of an FCC citation. I have heard a brief snippet of the tapes. 30 seconds was about all I could stomach. How many people are unaware of Bentley's wrongdoing because of those stations' decisions? Maybe that is the reason there isn't more public pressure to impeach him?

One would think the filter would at least be similar to the FCC standard, so ironically the details of the governor's lurid relationship would be off-limits to Alabama residents if this law were to pass. Maybe this is the whole point of the law: the primary sponsor of the bill is a Republican. But honestly, I don't give him or most of the Alabama GOP credit for enough smarts to come up with such a plan to keep the governor's indiscretions under wraps. I think it's simpler to say this law is just grandstanding to please religious conservatives. The GOP thinks they will not consider the real-world ramifications. Instead they will see the GOP standing up against porn and will shower them with support in next year's election. Sadly, they think that because of years of experience in seeing it work.

If you want to see grandstanding in action (or if you have no idea what the above picture is about, watch this clip from "O Brother Where Art Thou":

The fact of the matter is there are already laws against child porn, revenge porn, solicitation and all the other big problems this bill claims to address. Instead of creating a new law that has the potential to harm local businesses, harm the poor and do little to address the real issues, state and local law enforcement should do more to enforce those laws, and the legislature can adjust those laws as may prove necessary. I know that's easier said than done, but passing this particular bill
will help no one, at least no one in Alabama.

Stop Embracing Babylon

"My kingdom is not of this world." - Jesus

"Is this vile world a friend to Grace,
To help me on to God?" - Isaac Watts

Today the US Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right. Personally I think it’s a bad decision, but I can't say that it's going to directly affect my life. The indirect results are the ones I am afraid of, but that’s not the point of this article. More significantly this ruling is being viewed as a major blow to the so-called Religious Right. 

And that's the problem I want to address today. For decades the American church has been simply a cog in the political machine on both sides of the political aisle. Both parties have their circuits of churches, organizations and committees that their candidates can reliably count on for speaking engagements, donations and endorsement. 

Meanwhile, the church has steadily lost influence in society, if you believe survey after survey over the past couple of decades. In seeking temporal victory in Washington rather than spiritual victory in people’s hearts, we have accomplished neither. We have been fighting in the wrong battlefield.

Babylon (by which I mean the temporal state) never has been and never will be the church’s friend. But there is no denying she is tempting. She promises political power and cultural influence, and in exchange all she requires is the sublimation of the church to her ends. This has been true throughout the church’s history, from Rome to Geneva to Massachusetts Bay. 

Certainly the contemporary American church is not the first church to be charmed by Babylon, nor will it be the last. But now is not the time to double down on our efforts to effect change in Washington. Now is the time to take stock of what we have lost and what little we have gained in our struggle. The church needs to stop embracing Babylon and instead return to embracing the cross of Jesus Christ. The first century church had no political action committee, and no values coalitions. They simply had the Gospel of Jesus Christ and they lived it every day. And they succeeded in turning the world upside down. 

No one denies the first-century church was successful. We have to stop judging our success or failure as a church by what goes on in the halls of political power. Today’s decision did not happen because we didn’t pray hard enough or send in enough letters. We have forgotten who is in charge here. God did not stop being God today. He did not step away from His throne for a couple of minutes and give the devil a chance to sneak one by Him. God is working and will continue to work His sovereign plan. But sadly many Christians in America are more broken up today over the decision than they are about the young girl in their congregation who is contemplating running away from home. In which situation would an encouraging word do the most good? In which one will our participation effect a greater change in eternity?

God defines success differently than we do. Samuel the prophet saw Eliab and thought this good-looking, accomplished man was surely the one God was going to choose to be the next king. Nebuchadnezzar seemed to be at the zenith of his power when God struck him with madness for a time for exalting himself in pride. The church at Laodicea had money in the bank, influential members in the community, and seemed to be a model church. But God said they were poor, blind and naked. I wonder what our political success and failure ledger look like to God? I don’t know for sure, but I am afraid those events that appear to be our biggest successes could turn out to be failures in God’s eyes.

Paul’s words to Timothy in I Timothy 2:1-2 are an appropriate way to close this piece: “Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.” (NKJV) 

Notice the motive we are to have when we pray for our political officials. Paul does not say to pray for them to make decisions we like, although I would not say that is entirely inappropriate. But the main thing we are to pray for is that they will leave us alone. Paul was not interested in scoring points in Rome for the good guys. He was interested in freedom to proclaim the Gospel. The Gospel changes people’s lives in ways legislation is powerless to achieve. Let’s bring the Gospel back to the forefront of our hearts and minds, individually and as churches. When we do that, we may lose more battles in Washington, but we will gain more souls for the Kingdom of Heaven. And isn’t that what the church is supposed to be about?

Open Runoff Elections - Fair or Unfair?

Let me preface this with a quick primer on my political views: I consider myself an independent, a Christian libertarian. I have never voted a straight party ticket in my life. I try to stay informed the best I can and vote for the best person, in my view. I have always lived in open primary states, so in the primary I choose whichever ballot has the most action. In southeast Missouri where I grew up, I took a Democrat ballot. In northern Alabama, I take a Republican ballot.

Today is primary election day here in Alabama. Alabama’s election process includes a runoff election between the primary and the general election. In a primary election you can have any number of candidates from each party for a certain office. The purpose of the primary election is for party loyalists to choose their favorite candidate for the general election. After the regular primary election, in Alabama we have also have a runoff election. (It’s scheduled for July 15.) In the event no candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote the top two candidates face off in the runoff election. It’s sort of a second round of the primary. It certainly makes the election process more interesting. When there are three or four candidates in the primary, the favorite is going to push to win the primary outright so he can avoid the runoff. When there is a huge field, everyone knows there will be a runoff, so the real battle is for second place in the election so he can win a spot in the runoff.

As I said, Alabama is an open primary state. That means you can come to the polling place on election day and choose which party you want to vote for. Other states require you to register as a member of a certain party, and you have to take that party’s ballot in the primary. I don’t have an objection to either of these methods. Of course anyone can choose any candidate on the general election ballot, regardless of party. No one is obligated to vote for their chosen party on the general ballot.

The quirk in Alabama’s system is that the runoff election is open, too. It’s honestly not that big of a deal, it’s just something I remember vividly from the last election, and I find it remarkable that neither of the major parties has sought to close that loophole, especially given Alabama’s history of one-party rule.

Let me illustrate the issue with the real-life events that happened in the last election year. In 2010 there was a particular Republican candidate I wanted to win the governor’s race (I don’t even remember his name now), but it was a crowded field with seven or eight candidates. The candidate I wanted to win won first place in the primary. The second place winner was a surprise – Robert Bentley, a nondescript dermatologist from Tuscaloosa whose main claim to fame was that he once treated Bear Bryant (If you wonder why that matters, you’ve never been to Alabama).

There was a strong Democrat race for governor as well, but it was between two candidates. The one candidate won the primary, and that was it. So we had another six weeks of the two Republican governor candidates duking it out on the campaign trail and endless TV and radio commercials. Meanwhile here in Morgan County, if I remember right, there was one minor county office and one minor state office – secretary of state or something like that – on the Democrat ballot. Naturally the Republican governor’s race was the main focus of the public and the media during the campaign cycle.

When I went to the polls on the runoff election day, I was the 77th person to vote at that precinct, Decatur Baptist Church on Danville Road. I know this because I signed my name on the 76th blank to receive a Republican ballot. When I looked at the Democrat sheet, there was only one signature. The final results in Morgan County were not that far off from that. More than 90 percent of the votes cast were on the Republican ticket. I know Decatur is mostly a Republican town, especially the area I happened to be voting in that year. But you can’t tell me Republicans outnumber Democrats 76 to 1, or even 9 to 1.

And the numbers weren’t that unbalanced because all the Democrats stayed home. The runoff turnout was only slightly smaller than the primary turnout. No, the results were that way because lots of Democrats voted in the Republican primary. And I think it is safe to assume the vast majority of them voted for Bentley, the more moderate of the two candidates. So was I disappointed that my candidate didn’t win? Yeah. Would he have done that much different from what Bentley has done the last 3 ½ years? I don’t know, probably not.

But the point is that is not the purpose of the primary election. The primary election is for party supporters to choose for themselves. That’s why you have separate ballots. I remember some people saying at the time that Bentley was the Democrats’ real nominee for governor. I wouldn’t go that far, but it does reflect a flaw in the system. People may see a candidate who wins this way as a less than legitimate candidate.

There is an easy solution for this that would preserve the open primary system: have an open primary and a closed runoff. When you take a ballot in the primary election, the poll worker could note which party you took. It wouldn’t be that hard. Then when you come to the polls for the runoff, the poll worker looks at the letter printed beside your name and hands you the same party’s ballot that you selected in the primary. No one would be allowed to vote in the runoff who hadn’t voted in the primary, unless there is something like a statewide ballot issue, and they would only receive that ballot. No one would be obligated to take the same party ballot in the primary in the next election cycle. This would preserve the open primary system.

I’m not a native Alabamian, but frankly I am surprised neither party has “fixed” this already. Since the Civil War Alabama’s government has been characterized by one-party rule. By one-party rule I mean the governor and the majority of both houses of the legislature and the Supreme Court have been all of one party. It hasn’t happened every election cycle, but most of the time it has. You would think that with that much control of the legislative process the party in charge would have kept such a situation as I described above from taking place. But they haven’t. Maybe that’s a good thing. Maybe it is a way to preserve the voice of the people in a one-party system. But neither of the main parties is concerned as much with the will of the people as they are with preserving power. That’s why I’m surprised the runoffs are open.

Don’t forget to vote today if you are in Alabama!

Why Obamacare May Not Be As Bad As You (or I) Think It Is

I am an unabashed conservative/libertarian who doesn’t see the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) as being the end of the world. There. I said it. You can cancel my membership in the C/L club if you wish, but before you do, I want you to hear my reasons for guarded optimism. Some might say that this article is late, since the ACA is already being implemented. But until the GOP gets off its never ending drumbeat of “repeal, repeal, repeal,” a voice like mine is going to be relevant.

Everyone in the U.S. for decades has admitted that there are serious problems with our health care system. I, like most conservatives, blamed the increased role of government in the system as the primary culprit. I still view it that way. But an idealistic, John Galt approach of “I refuse to claim power over you, not even for the moment before I set you free” is not going to work. Government got us into this mess, government will have to get us out.

For many years, conservatives have said that one of the main problems with the American health care system is that people had no way to gauge costs. If you had insurance (and most people who needed it or wanted it had it, no matter what liberals said) you just went to the doctor, paid your small co-pay and that was it. Yeah, you might look at the bill afterward and laugh about a $50 charge for your big souvenir water mug, but that wasn’t your problem. The insurance company paid for all that; that’s what you were paying them for. Meanwhile the cost of insurance to your employer or you directly kept going up and up, paperwork costs for doctors and hospitals kept going up and up, and the percentage of the bills that were actually getting paid was going down.

For better or for worse, Obamacare addressed this problem. The majority of people have higher deductibles and co-payments now. Pricing is way more transparent. Given a few years, people will become more personally invested in their health care choices and needs. They will be more aware of the costs of medical care, and will take notice when they are overcharged for things. It might be unpleasant to deal with that reality, but we conservatives are all about dealing with unpleasant realities, right? Liberals are the ones who deal in blissful ignorance. Blissful ignorance was all the average consumer of health care in this country had to deal with for decades. Obamacare is changing that. Personally, I think that is a change for the better.

It’s kind of like President Bush’s reform of Medicare about a decade ago. At the time, I was opposed to it. I still think the expansion of prescription drug coverage was a bad idea, but that’s not the point. I remember getting angry the first few years every fall when there would be an endless stream of commercials promoting the Medicare supplement open enrollment coverage. But then it hit me: Bush’s plan gets private companies in the business of underwriting and paying portions of Medicare that would have been paid for by my tax dollars before. That was actually a very conservative move, ironically one of the few conservative policies Bush actually implemented in his term of office.

And people are engaged with it. All the ads we will see this fall will encourage seniors to consider their options carefully. “Consider?” “Options?” That sounds pretty conservative to me. It sure doesn’t sound like a monolithic government imposing its will on the population. By all accounts, Bush’s reforms have actually reduced government outlays for Medicare. Hopefully, in time, as the rest of us become more engaged with our health care options we will see our costs go down through ACA as well.

Are there problems with Obamacare? Yes. I still believe the individual mandate violates individual rights, but the Supreme Court said it was a tax, which doesn't really make sense. Besides that, what I find most troubling is the way the Administration has chosen which parts of the bill it wants to implement and which it doesn’t. That sets a dangerous precedent for the future of the country. Letting any administration choose which laws, or which parts of laws, it wants to enforce and which it does not is a surefire recipe for injustice and anarchy. Is there a danger that people will be so angry over the higher costs that a liberal administration will step in and implement a single-payer system like the Clintons pushed for 20 years ago? Yes, there is, and conservatives need to be on guard against that. Are there other problems? Yes, and my next article will address two that I think need to be corrected immediately.

Most of the conservative criticism you hear about Obamacare these days has to do with the new higher out-of-pocket costs. I’m just not convinced that higher out-of-pocket costs are necessarily a bad thing. The more people realize what their health care actually costs, they might be more willing to forgo that trip to the emergency room for some penny-ante thing and instead pick up some bandages or pain medicine at the store. Or they might skip the unscheduled trip to the doctor when the little one has the sniffles. This would not be a bad thing. One of the reasons medical care has been so bad in this country is because people were flooding the system with minor problems because they weren't paying for it, the insurance company or Medicare or Medicaid was paying for it.

We conservatives need to be honest brokers. We need to challenge the Administration when we believe it is misleading the American people. We need to present our own ideas in a compelling, honest way. But we also need to be more concerned with doing what is best for the country rather than scoring political points. I understand that we have a different vision for what is best for the country than liberals do, and that is fine. We ought to be true to our vision. But hunkering down and waiting for the current administration to be over is not good leadership, nor is it true to our vision. And neither is pretending every detail in the ACA plan is a disaster, when if a Republican president had proposed many of the same concepts we would be defending it nonstop.