By Scott Wright

First off, I have some explaining to do. A reader wrote in last week and scolded me -- rightly so, I might add -- for failing to adequately explain in a recent news article the entire history of the Cedar Bluff wet-dry ridiculousness.

The reader wanted a better explanation of the difference between the Alabama Supreme Court's opinion in April 2002 that a law allowing a wet-dry vote in the town would, conceivably, be unconstitutional and the Court's December 2004 decision that tossed out the challenges of unconstitutionality by a local anti-alcohol group.

The result of that initial advisory opinion -- the important distinction between an opinion and a ruling should be noted here -- was that Sen. Gerald Dial's bill was dropped before it ever became a law or was even voted on by the Legislature. Basically, the Supreme Court said, "Hey, if you pass this, looks like it might not get past us." There was some educated disagreement on that issue, but Dial acquiesced and dropped the bill.

After lengthy legal discussions between Cedar Bluff officials and the state's Legislative Reference Service, another slightly reworded bill asking for a wet-dry vote was introduced the following year by Sen. Larry Means and Rep. Richard Lindsey on behalf of the Town Council. The second law passed the Legislature, was signed by Gov. Bob Riley and became law.

Carl Green and the Citizens Caring for Children sued the town to stop the election which the newly passed law allowed for, or to have the results of the vote tossed if things didn't go their way.

By a margin of 3-to-1, things didn't, so local Judge David Rains promptly declared the election and its results null and void. The town appealed the decision and eventually the Supreme Court ruled -- RULED, this time -- that Green and the CCC did not prove they had been "injured" in any way -- physically, emotionally, financially, etc. -- by the results of the election allowing alcohol sales.

The Supreme Court did NOT rule on whether the law allowing the wet-dry vote was constitutional. Their discussions never got that far because, as they scoldingly told Judge Rains, there is no legal case if there is no standing. And since Green and CCC had not been "injured" they had no standing to file the case to begin with. The justices remanded the case to Rains for dismissal and the plaintiffs agreed to drop the matter.

But Rains disagreed with the Supreme Court and decided that instead of dismissing the case, he'd stick the paperwork in his desk drawer for a year in case someone else who didn't like the thought of legalized alcohol sales in Cedar Bluff wanted to take legal action without having to start at the bottom of the adjudicatory ladder.

Enter Cedar Bluff resident Geral Greene. Mr Greene and his attorneys believe that they will be able to prove he has actually been "injured" by the results of the wet-dry referendum. Believable proof of injury would, conceivably, allow the Supreme Court to THEN rule on the constitutionality of the law, disallow the results of the election and toss out all the alcohol in Cedar Bluff.

All the legal alcohol, anyway.

Whew. That explanation took a lot longer than I thought. I hope, despite the length, that this information offers some of you who may not have been following the soap opera that this matter has become at least a smidgen of insight into the particulars of the intricacies of the machinations of the ridiculousness that is the current constitution of the state of Alabama.

• • • • • • • • • •

Speaking of ridiculousness ... How about that Tom DeLay, huh? District 3 Rep. Mike Rogers still loves the guy, but I dislike the Republican representative from Sugar Land, Texas more and more every time I pick up a newspaper or visit a news website.

On Thursday, CNN.com revealed that the Hammer, as DeLay is known for his hard-handed legislative tactics, suddenly discovered earlier this month that his legal defense fund has received almost $40,000 more than he's ever bothered to report in the financial disclosure forms he is required to file every three months with the House of Representatives.

Geez! You'd think a guy who's under indictment on felony money laundering charges would at least have the common sense to get his public finances in order before the feds start going through the desk drawers in his office.

Wait. Of course DeLay lost track of 40,000 measly little old dollars! After all, he has been busy these past few years lining the pockets of millionaire sweatshop owners and sex traders in the Northern Marianas Islands and overpaying relatives on his staff to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. He's been spending hundreds of thousands of federal tax dollars to settle scores and wield his heavy-handed brand of political influence back in his home state, too. Why, $40,000 is chicken scratch money to this guy. I'm sure he's sorry, too, and won't hide donations again.

(If that last sentence didn't make the needle on your sarcasm detector shoot into the red area of the dial, you probably need to change the batteries.)

• • • • • • • • • •

Let's see, what else is going on in the world this week ...

As much as I dislike the policies of the Bush administration, there was a story I came across on the Internet last week that makes no sense at all to report, on any level.

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll released Tuesday found that 55 percent of 1,008 adult Americans said they would not vote for President George W. Bush if he was running for the presidency this year.

To me, that's the same as arguing that last years' Iron Bowl would have been won by Alabama if they had stopped keeping score at halftime (the Tide were up 6-0 at intermission, you might recall). The poll was pointless, a waste of time. All it did was allow people who are disgruntled with the rag-tag policies of this out-of-whack administration to vent and admit the fact that they made a huge mistake re-electing the yahoo last November.

Hell, I could have told the folks at Gallup that much a year ago, and saved all those people having their evening meals interrupted by phone calls from pollsters.

The poll also found that a majority of those questioned believe Democrats could do a better job than Republicans at handling health care issues, Social Security overhaul, gasoline prices, and the economy. Even 46 percent of the respondents believe the Dems could do a better job at handling the situation in Iraq.

Another poll, conducted earlier this month by Harris Interactive, found that 53 percent of Americans now feel like taking the fight to Saddam Hussein was "the wrong thing to do."

I wish I had as much faith in the Democrats and their abilities to handle domestic problems as the folks who participated in that poll. So far, though, I've seen little if any leadership from party leaders in Washington on any of these issues. As for the situation in Iraq, though, I feel fairly confident that, at the very least, the Democrats couldn't have done any worse than this administration.

• • • • • • • • • •

Speaking of health care issues, a story in last Tuesday's USA Today found that American consumers, their employers and health plans could have saved around $20 billion dollars in the commercial drug market through increased use of generic drugs. The story was based on a report by pharmacy benefit manager Express Scripts, Inc.

According to the story, the Express Scripts study examined six major classes of drugs including antidepressants and cholesterol-lowering medications and was based on a sample of around 3 million commercial members of Express Scripts. The study found that "if more actions aren't taken to increase generic use, $24 billion in saving will be lost this year and $25 billion will be (lost) in 2006."

The story said government health care plans such as Medicaid, which is for the poor, was not included in the study. I'll bet the study didn't touch on the massive boondoggle that is the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, either. Originally projected to cost $400 billion over 10 years, that number has already increased to over $700 billion and the program hasn't even started yet. Seniors across the nation are already avoiding the program in droves, calling it too confusing to even attempt to participate in.

Actually, I think the word they're looking for is "ridiculous."

Scott Wright is a member of the National Society of Newspaper Columnists and an award-winning member of the Society of Professional Journalists. He is a native of Cherokee County.