Come now, let's face facts, folks

One of the great elements of this blog is that it serves as a forum for free expression, both on the part of me (the individual providing information), and those individuals who choose to criticize me for providing this information to the voters of Alabama. Before proceeding this week with the first post, let me say that there is a reason why I do not refer to this as strictly my opinion--because it is not. The information I am providing is information widely reported in the state's press, as well as other printed sources of information during the Troy King era. Certainly those who read this blog receive my analysis (namely that the things which occurred have been bad for Alabama), and that evaluation is open to interpretation.

That said--one clarification from last week. Last week I alluded to Sheriff Jack Tillman. I apologize for any misconception that Jack Tillman did jail time. My information on the case comes from a CNN report, published January 9, 2009, this year, on Morgan County. According to that report, it notes: "Mobile County Sheriff Jack Tillman pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors, perjury and an ethics offense, and resigned in 2006." Don't know about you, but to me, that doesn't sound too good for Mr. Tillman. However, don't blame me--I merely report what I know.

However, if you will notice, this still completely avoids the bigger problem. There was a fundamental problem with our state's law, and instead of solving it (as Ronald Reagan would have done), Troy King learned about it and just ignored it. Let's face it--Alabama has always been a den of corruption. Anyone who follows this state's politics knows that we have corrupt officials, and we need strong laws preventing this corruption. This archaic law allows sheriffs to pocket food funds, and so some have abused the system.

Now, Troy King had, in my view, two options. He could have (a) released an opinion (which he was asked to do) noting that the law was archaic, inconsistent with standards of corruption, and inconsistent with the Code of Alabama. That's a valid response, and it would have solved the problem. Now, Troy King could easily argue that this constitutes "activism." However, he would also be wrong, there. Troy King is an elected official, elected to perform the will of the people of Alabama. Opinions of the AG office are non-binding--they are merely advisory, but they have a lot of force. To me, it makes sense to use some of that force to end an archaic law. Let's assume for a moment, though, that Troy King is actually right, and he should not have released an opinion. Well, then, (b) he could have lobbied the legislature to pass a change to the law, like he has done on many other measures. Troy King had both options on his table, and he chose to pursue neither one.

I don't know Troy King's motives for this inaction--I did speculate last week that it could relate to the Mobile case, which was referenced as a reason for not providing an opinion on the prisoner meal issue. I said it could relate to AG King's relationship with former Sheriff Tillman, who has, shall we say, a questionable history on this issue. What I do believe is that Troy King, if he truly had the best interest of the people of Alabama at heart, would have sought to address this issue. Instead, he turned his back and watched, like he has on countless other issues, also noted on this blog.