by Hollis Wormsby, Jr.
Rolando McClain’s Fairy Tale Season Reminds Us of  the Value of Second Chances
Rolando McClain is one of the best linebackers in the University of Alabama’s history, and that is saying a lot when you remember that Alabama history includes the likes of Leroy Jordan, Derrick Thomas and my all time favorite, Cornelius “Biscuit” Bennett. While playing linebacker for Alabama from 2007 to 2010 McClain claimed such honors as SEC Defensive Player of the Year, the Lambert Award for being the best linebacker in College Football as well as the Dick Butkus Award. He would go on to be drafted eighth overall by the Oakland Raiders in 2010, but after signing a mega contract there his demons began to catch up with him and many felt he was out of football for life after he mysteriously retired from the Baltimore Ravens, theoretically his second chance at 23 years old last summer.
Fortunately the story does not end there, at least at this point.
Fortunately this is not the story of how a super talented kids who grew up on the rough side of town in Decatur, Alabama goes on to ruin his career with bad life decisions, though it came close.  At his lowest point, after resolving his court issues in Decatur, McClain went back to the University of Alabama, the scene of his college glory days and went back to school. Credit Alabama Coach Nick Saban with choosing to reach out to him and to be a mentor to him; credit the Dallas Cowboys for giving him one more chance; but also credit Rolando McClain for being man enough and strong enough to stand up and take advantage of what was probably the last opportunity likely to come his way.
As a lifetime Cowboys fan I fully realized at the time that signing McClain was an act of desperation by a team with a very bad defense that suffered debilitating injuries during the pre-season. McClain was picked up to try and fill the void left after Pro-Bowl middle linebacker Sean Lee was lost for the season due to an injury during pre-season. I think at the time the most that I or most folks hoped for would be that he would not be awful, and that maybe a year in a different environment might somehow reinvigorate his career. No one believed he would have the kind of All-Pro season that he is having on the field and that there have been no incidences off of the field. This past Sunday when the Dallas Cowboys beat the defending Super Bowl Champions, Seattle Seahawks, in a nationally televised upset, the best defender on the field was Rolando McClain. The defender with the game winning interception in the closing moments was Rolando McClain. The quiet, humble man who took questions from the media later I hardly recognized.
Everything about McClain’s demeanor and his words say that he is a different man. But McClain doesn’t say that, he just says he is taking it day to day, trying to find a way to get better, to help his team, and be a good role model for his children. I was so proud of him I gave him a standing ovation in my man cave.
But McClain’s story is about more than his own personal redemption.  The bad part of his story is all too common. He started out in the projects in Decatur, with an abusive mother and an absent father. In high school, even as he was impressing the world with his athletic skills, he often lived from family to family. He did not have his father in his life, and from an outside perspective looking in, he did not have positive male role models in his life in meaningful ways. This is a story repeated in community after community across America. The real take away from the Rolando McClain story should be what can we learn from his success that we can use to help turn around the lives of some of the lost young men in our own community.
Or at least that is the way I see it.
(Do you have a question or comment on this column?  Look me up on Facebook/HollisWormsby or email me at hjwormsby@aol.com.)

 As a state representative, there are a lot of causes I am proud to make a stand for. My two biggest priorities, and what I have devoted the majority of my time to, have been job creation and education.
But I have also been proud to take a stand for our second amendment rights, and proud to say that I have been endorsed by the NRA in every one of my campaigns.
This year, I was one of only four legislative candidates to receive an A+ rating from the NRA – the highest rating the NRA can give a candidate. Interestingly enough, three of the four candidates who received the A+ rating are Democrats: Rep. Johnny Mack Morrow, Sen. Roger Bedford and myself.
Being a life-long gun owner and having served in the military, I have always believed strongly in both the second amendment and, most importantly, in promoting safe practices and classes in firearm safety.
But as important as this endorsement is to me, what’s most important of all is being honest with the voters about where I stand. Some people may disagree with my position on this issue, and I certainly appreciate their points of view and understand their concerns. But at least you know where I stand.
The same cannot be said of my opponent: Doug Sherrod.
The NRA sends their questionnaire to every political candidate in the state. We all had months to consider each question and to give honest answers. But my opponent couldn’t be bothered to even take the time to fill the questionnaire out. And that’s a big problem!
It’s one thing to take a different position on an issue. After all, that’s what elections are all about. But when you don’t take any position and don’t even bother to answer the questions, then you are disrespecting all the voters – not just those who are members of the NRA.
The people have a right to know where candidates stand. Sure, there are times when we might not know enough about an issue to give an informed opinion. And when that happens, the responsible thing to do is to say, “I don’t know. But I will learn more about it and get back with you.”
But it is never ok for a candidate to refuse to answer the questions about where they stand on an issue.
I have a lot of supporters on both sides of the fence when it comes to firearms and the NRA. Most of those who disagree with me on firearms still support me because of my position on education and job creation. But whether or not you support me, at least you know where I stand – and not just on the second amendment!
I can respect anyone who puts themselves out there to run for office, even if I strongly disagree with them. I respect a person who takes a stand. What I can’t respect is someone who won’t be honest with the voters about where they stand or what they believe in.
The only way we can have an honest debate in politics – whether it’s on guns or any other issue – is if the candidates are honest about where they stand and why they believe what they believe.
I don’t like making a lot of campaign promises. Too many times, the politicians who promise the moon then spend their whole term in office trying to explain why they couldn’t deliver it. Instead, I will only make one promise: that  I will always be honest about what I believe and where I stand, and that I will always respect, listen to and keep an open mind with those who might disagree with me. Can we say the same about some of these other candidates like Doug Sherrod?

Rep. Craig Ford is a Democrat from Gadsden and the Minority Leader in the Alabama House of Representatives.

 Some readers remember when gasoline prices reached $.50 per gallon and then topped $1. Others recall when prices first arrived at the $2 level. Younger drivers, however, may not have witnessed prices below $3 per gallon.
The fact is, gasoline prices have been high for several years. This is primarily because of the rising price of crude oil – a vital component in the production of gasoline – over the years. Crude oil comprises 67 percent of the cost of gasoline.
But pump prices could be much lower if certain steps were taken, according to energy economist Nicholas Loris. Loris has written about actions that Congress and President Obama could take to reduce gasoline prices. Let’s review some of his recommendations and see how they might work
First, he recommends removing government restriction on crude oil exports from this country. This could decrease gasoline prices by creating opportunities for oil companies to produce additional crude oil and cause the refinery system to become more efficient. One study indicates this could lower gas prices by 8 cents per gallon.
Loris advocates lifting the ban on oil exploration in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic and Pacific coasts as well as leasing additional tracts in Alaska. Opening these areas to exploration would increase the supply of crude oil. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge contains 10.4 billion barrels of oil in a relatively small area.
Approving the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that has been stalled for several years, would allow the United States to import 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico. Increasing the supply of crude would push down the prices of both crude and gasoline.
A fourth recommendation is repeal of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), known as the ethanol mandate.  RFS requires refineries to blend increasing amounts of ethanol into gasoline each year. The total will reach 36 billion gallons by 2022.  The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated the mandate will increase prices by 13 cents to 26 cents per gallon as early as 2017.
What can be concluded from Loris’ comments? At first glance, they have merit and appear, for the most part, to be a common-sense approach. But like many other common-sense ideas, they may fall by the wayside.

Wayne Curtis, former superintendent of Alabama banks, is a retired Troy University business school dean. Email him at wccurtis39@gmail.com.

by Steve Flowers

This year’s state primary elections have brought very little drama or surprises. However, there have been the inevitable novel surprises nationwide.
One of the most glaring jaw droppers was the defeat of Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in Virginia. He lost his House seat to a Tea Party challenger within the Republican Primary. Many national commentators found his defeat implausible and inexplicable. However, it was apparent to me from afar that it can very well be explained that he was more interested in being seen on national television than in his Virginia district. Cantor spent more time talking national issues on national talk shows than making sure he spent time with the folks who elected him and listening to what issues they were interested in talking about. There is a tried and true maxim in politics that “all politics is local.”
The most telling fact in the Cantor demise scenario is that he spent more on steak dinners than his opponent spent on his own campaign to defeat Cantor. Indeed, all of these steak dinners were bought and eaten outside of Cantor’s district. Perhaps if Cantor had spent as much time with his constituents as he did raising money from fat cat contributors he would still be in Congress.
Besides holding lavish fundraising dinners at fancy Washington, D.C. steakhouses, which cost more than his opponent spent, he also entertained potential campaign contributors in cities that included Boca Raton, Los Angeles, Manhattan, Las Vegas, Palm Beach, Atlanta, Denver, and Beverly Hills. You would have to say Cantor probably got too big for his britches. He got a bad case of Potomac fever and it got the best of him.
On a quasi-national/local note the City of Birmingham has made a valiant but probably futile attempt to host the 2016 Democratic National Convention. Birmingham has about as much chance to land the Democratic confab as Mars. The primary criteria for a political party selecting a city for a convention sight is to enhance their chances of carrying that state in the presidential election. The chances of the Democratic presidential candidate winning Alabama in 2016 is about as good as a snowball’s chance in hell.
The more likely winner of the sweepstakes for the Democratic Convention will be Cleveland or Columbus, Ohio. Ohio is the ultimate swing state. Philadelphia could be a possibility. Pennsylvania is a marginal swing state with a Democratic lean. However, they may ultimately pick the Big Apple. Although New York is as reliably Democratic as Alabama is Republican, they may acquiesce to the urge to make the convention a complete coronation of Hillary Clinton. New York is the adopted home of Bill and Hillary. She also was the U.S. Senator from New York.
The 2012 Democratic Convention was held in Charlotte, North Carolina. This was a way to pay back the Tar Heel State for their support of Barack Obama in 2008. However, North Carolina fell back into the GOP fold in 2012.
Alabama did host a national party convention in 1948. Appropriately, the Heart of Dixie was host to the Dixiecrat Convention that year. White southerners had voted straight Democratic for over 75 years. However, Harry Truman, the 1948 Democratic nominee, was more than tacitly backing a civil rights plank. The Democratic platform called for eliminating the poll tax, integrating the Army and abolishing all segregation laws.
Alabama and southern delegates walked out of the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia and headed to hot Birmingham, Alabama. They gathered at Birmingham’s municipal auditorium. Bull Conner ranted racist rhetoric to 6,000 people gathered to nominate someone other than Truman. They nominated South Carolina Governor, Strom Thurmond. He accepted the nomination and stated, “There’s not enough troops in the Army to break down segregation and admit Negroes into our homes, our theaters and our swimming pools.”  The rest is history.

See you next week.

Steve Flowers is Alabama’s leading political columnist. His column appears weekly in 72 Alabama newspapers. Steve served 16 years in the state legislature. He may be reached at www.steveflowers.us.

 by  Marc H. Morial
President and CEO
National Urban League

“The Court holds that SB 14 creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose.  The Court further holds that SB 14 constitutes an unconstitutional poll tax.”  U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos in striking down the Texas voter ID law
Last week, voter ID laws that could have disenfranchised nearly a million voters in the November 4 midterm elections in two states – Texas and Wisconsin – were ruled unconstitutional.  These voting rights victories were critical because of the traditional challenges and unprecedented high stakes associated with this year’s midterms.
Then, on Tuesday, in a low blow to voting rights across the nation, a federal appeals court blocked the lower court’s decision and cleared the way for Texas to enforce its suppressive voter ID requirements in the upcoming November elections.  This Texas law changes existing procedures and requires all voters to present a photo ID before being allowed into the voting booth.  In the past, voters could demonstrate their identities in various ways.  Now, only a small number of documents are permissible – shockingly, gun permits, but not student IDs, will be acceptable.
Voter participation typically drops off in non-presidential election years, with many analysts noting that recent midterm turnout has been about 40 percent compared to 56 percent in presidential years.  The non-partisan Voter Participation Center (VPC) predicts an even steeper decline in 2014 among what they have termed “The Rising American Electorate or RAE” (people of color, unmarried women and youth voters ages 18-29).  They predict that “more than one-in-three RAE voters who turned out in 2012 will NOT turn out in 2014 (34.5% of those who voted in 2012, or 21.8 million RAE voters, will stay home). The predicted drop-off among all other voters is only 17.5% or 12.2 million voters.”  With so much at stake – everything from police shootings of unarmed Black men to equitable implementation of Common Core State Standards to rising income inequality – we simply cannot afford to sit this one out.
Despite many attempts to keep certain groups from the polls, champions for democracy and civil rights – such as the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, led by Sherrilyn Ifill and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, led by Barbara Arnwine – continue to fight to protect our voting rights.  We must also continue to build on the momentum of 2012 when, for the first time in history, African Americans voted at a higher rate than whites.  The repeal of the Texas voter ID law, considered to be the most restrictive in the nation, could have added to that momentum – if it had been upheld.
In striking down the law, U.S. District Judge Nelva Ramos ruled that the difficult and expensive effort to obtain photo IDs from more than 600,000 Texas citizens, many of whom are poor, amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax.  She also debunked the law’s bogus claim of preventing voter fraud by pointing out that “In the 10 years preceding passage of SB 14 in Texas, only two cases of in-person voter impersonation fraud were prosecuted to conviction – a period of time in which 20 million votes were cast.”
Also, last Thursday, over the objections of Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the United States Supreme Court blocked implementation of Wisconsin’s voter ID law.  Previously ruled unconstitutional because of its disproportionate impact on African American and Hispanic voters, the Wisconsin law could have disenfranchised 300,000 residents who do not have acceptable photo IDs, including a high number of people of color.
Commenting on both initial rulings, Attorney General Eric Holder said, “We are extremely heartened by the court’s decision, which affirms our position that the Texas voter identification law unfairly and unnecessarily restricts access to the franchise…We are also pleased that the Supreme Court has refused to allow Wisconsin to implement its own restrictive voter identification law.”
Unfortunately, the latest Texas ruling could not be more disheartening.  The three-judge panel in the federal appeals court did not find the lower court’s ruling wrong or unlawful.  Instead, they chose to delay consideration of whether the ruling should permanently stand. In a concurring opinion on the appeal, citing concerns about potential confusion from last-minute changes in the voting rules as reason enough to allow Texas to enforce its restrictive voting laws, Judge Gregg Costa also admitted that “we should be extremely reluctant to have an election take place under a law that a district court has found, and that our court may find, is discriminatory.”  We agree.
In 1964, the Supreme Court said, “No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.”
That basic principle stands today.  Voter suppression and disenfranchisement far outweigh any trumped up and spurious claims of election day confusion.  The first step in ensuring our voices are heard is ensuring our votes are cast.  Don’t let anything keep you from the polls on November 4 – even in Texas.