Recent editorials from Alabama newspapers:
___
Aug. 14
The Cullman Times on the Second Amendment:
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. - Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Dec. 15, 1791.
A lot has been written and discussed concerning the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The first 10 amendments were established as the Bill of Rights, a series of legal enactments by Congress to ensure foundational rights for American citizens that support the spirit and purpose of the Constitution.
Few amendments have stirred more controversy than the Second Amendment because of its directive that citizens can be armed as a means of self-protection and a deterrent to an over-aggressive central government.
The idea of an armed citizenry dates back to the English Bill of Rights of 1689 following a political period in which much debate and concern had arisen over the power of a king to rule or act without the consent of Parliament. Certainly, the Founding Fathers of the United States brought this desire with them as they sought to establish a nation that could withstand tyranny through the power of a free and empowered population of ordinary citizens.
Historically, the amendment was vital to maintaining citizen militias that could respond to dangers to communities and states before the federal government established a permanent, trained army. Nonetheless, there was a prevailing thought that came across the ocean from Europe that citizens needed firmly founded rights to guard against government becoming so powerful that it controlled the free speech and reasonable actions of the people.
Debates over altering or eliminating the Second Amendment are rooted today in the wave of violence that has swept the nation as unstable individuals have charged into clubs, schools, theaters and other establishments to randomly murder innocent people. Even at the time of the amendment’s creation, some political leaders were upset at the thought of a regularly armed population, which was a view carried over from the tradition of monarchies across Europe.
Nevertheless, Americans have overall handled the responsibilities of owning guns with a great deal of care. Like the forefathers before us, owning a well-crafted gun carries a sense of pride and allows families to learn to hunt and target practice. And of course there is the matter of self-protection.
The atrocities carried out since Columbine are not the acts of responsible, stable people. We shouldn’t have to reassure ourselves that most gun owners are well aware of the power and destructive force of a firearm. The constant arguments about the validity of the Second Amendment in modern society have no merit. This is a right ensured by the authors of our freedoms and rights.
The only issue is how to more effectively keep guns out of the hands of unstable people.
The 10 amendments - the Bill of Rights - should not be subject to emotional political tampering. Those guarantees are in place and should never be disturbed.
As responsible citizens, we should be willing to reach effective agreements on how to better guard against evil and disturbed people having access to weapons. If the term “gun control” was left out of the discussion, something positive would emerge for the sake of the public.
Online: https://www.cullmantimes.com/
___
Aug. 17
The Montgomery Advertiser on a new memorial and museum soon coming to Montgomery:
The Montgomery-based Equal Justice Initiative recently announced plans to open a national memorial to lynching victims, along with a museum dedicated to tracking black history in the United States from the days of slavery to the present.
The ambitious project, scheduled to open in April 2017, comes at a time when racial division across the country festers and grows, stirred by politicians, such as Donald Trump, who rouse the demons of hatred and prejudice for perceived political gain.
The memorial and museum will both be fittingly located in Montgomery, close to sites where slaves were brought in by boat to be sold on the auction block. In what promises to be a stunning visual tribute to lynching victims, the memorial will be built on a hill above the city and consist of more than 800 floating columns bearing the names of counties where lynchings occurred.
In a wider effort to raise awareness of the horrible toll racism took on black communities, EJI will make available replicas of the columns for representatives of those counties to take and display at actual lynching sites.
What better way to bring home and honor the suffering of those victims? Especially when today, across the South and elsewhere, monuments, buildings and other locations are still named after the perpetrators of discrimination, from the Edmund Pettus bridge in Selma to countless statues that salute the Confederacy.
The new museum will feature artifacts, interactive exhibits, films and other data on slavery and segregation. It will rightly draw lines connecting the evils of the past to present issues, such as justice system inequities and police profiling of minorities, that continue to plague the nation.
The memorial and museum will pay tribute in an honest and unflinching way to the ugly truths of America’s tainted history, in which slave labor built prosperity for whites and the wealthy while keeping most blacks enchained in poverty. The sorry remnants of that legacy remain in plain sight in Alabama’s rural, Black Belt counties, where public schools are denied the funding needed to offer minority students an equitable education.
Quoted in the New York Times, Montgomery Mayor Todd Strange said he supports the project, while acknowledging some people may object to the lynching memorial. Yes, and some people still object to interracial marriage. Some people insist on romanticizing the days of slavery. Some people continue to begrudge the descendants of slaves equal opportunity and access to the American dream.
Prejudice and bigotry are hard to root out, particularly when the flames of fear and hatred are being fanned in a disgraceful way by politicians courting the votes of white supremacists.
The EJI’s bold project will hasten the day those flames are extinguished for good. It will be a welcome addition to downtown Montgomery.
Online:
___
Aug. 19
The TimesDaily on Aetna’s decision to pull out of Obamacare exchanges in several states:
Recent news that insurance giant Aetna would pull out of Obamacare exchanges in 11 of 15 states resulted in a chorus of “I told you so” from those opposed to the Affordable Care Act.
And no wonder. The law has plenty of problems. The Medicare-for-all plan proposed by Hillary Clinton when her husband was president scared off Congress and triggered intense, sustained lobbying by a health insurance industry that stood to lose lots of revenue.
As finally passed early in the Obama administration, the ACA was a pale reflection of Clinton’s effort at universal coverage. President Barack Obama had to deal with the political reality that nothing would pass unless he placated the concerns of an insurance lobby that was spending lavishly on the campaigns of lawmakers in both parties.
So the ACA left health insurers in the mix. They would directly benefit from tax-funded subsidies to previously uninsured citizens. The companies were not required to participate in public exchanges where uninsured citizens could shop for the most affordable coverage.
When Aetna announced it would pull out of the exchanges, opponents of the ACA were ecstatic. The law, already crippled by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, now was hampered by the fact that insurers didn’t want to participate.
It turns out, however, that those who supported a government-run system - as already exists for seniors in the U.S. and for all citizens of most developed nations - were the ones vindicated by the announcement.
The justification Aetna gave for pulling out of the exchanges and disrupting health care for thousands was disturbing enough. There are just too many unhealthy people, the company said, for us to make a profit. Their point: Free enterprise, and even enterprise heavily subsidized by tax dollars, is not equipped to profitably deal with low-income citizens when they become sick.
The actual reason for Aetna’s decision, however, appears to be even more disturbing. Aetna’s decision apparently was in retaliation for an adverse antitrust ruling.
Aetna, whose CEO in April called the ACA exchanges a “good investment,” wanted to merge with Humana. The U.S. Department of Justice pushed back, pointing out the reduced competition would harm consumers.
Last month, in a letter to the Justice Department, Aetna’s CEO threatened to pull out of exchanges if the agency responded unfavorably to the merger request.
“Specifically, if the DOJ sues to enjoin the transaction, we will immediately take action to reduce our 2017 exchange footprint,” he wrote. “Instead of expanding to 20 states next year, we would reduce our presence to no more than 10 states.”
So ACA opponents are correct in one respect. The law relies too much on insurers that must focus exclusively on the bottom line, and that are willing to jeopardize the health of thousands in a political power play.
Online: https://www.timesdaily.com/
Please read our comment policy before commenting.