⇒ Facts, always the first to go

I love the letters to the editor written by the real crazies. The ones that talk about Osama Bin Laden’s vacation plans and then conclude with “read your bible.” I’m not too worried that these people vote, because that would require leaving their homes. And without the protection of their tin roof the satellites would definitely be able to read their minds.

No, those letters are fun. The most worrying are the seemingly sensible missives that arrive at the wrong conclusion because they just don’t have the facts right. A recent example appeared in the North Platte Telegraph:

Senator Obama’s energy policy consists of trying to reign in speculation of oil in the markets, promoting alternative energy sources and increasing the mileage standards of automobiles.

First, the automobile manufacturers have been increasing mileage standards for years, and they are currently producing smaller, fuel efficient cars which get 35 to 45 miles per gallon.

Second, alternative energy sources, e.g. wind, solar, thermal, hydro, tides can only provide a very small portion, maybe 10 percent to 15 percent, of our energy requirements.

First, average gas mileage has not improved appreciably since the days of the Model T Ford. That’s right, the Model T Ford got up to 21 mpg, which is the same as the 2005 average fleet fuel economy. US auto makers have been exceedingly slow to improve fuel efficiency, most of those 35-45 mpg cars are imports from countries that didn’t waste the ’90s building SUVs, and their small numbers isn’t enough to lift up a decades-long accumulation of poor-mpg cars lowering the average.

The second point is close to being true, if you just add “each” before the 10 to 15 percent. Take the example of California, a state that has actually been working on improving alternative energy sources. In 2007, 11.8% of their electricity came from renewable resources (wind, solar, geothermal) and another 11.7% was produced just from hydro power, according to the California State Energy Commission. And those numbers have only been growing, as California begins construction on what will be the world’s largest solar power plant. They predict this will increase the total percentage of renewable electricity to 24% by 2013 (a number which does not include hydro power). I don’t think that can be dismissed as a small portion by any standard.

The letter concludes:

Once again Senator Obama comes up with an untenable program, because he does not have the experience and good judgment to make sound decisions.

And I’m left to conclude that once again Senator Obama and his ideas have been dismissed because a letter writer didn’t have the knowledge to make a sound decision.

Read Full Post »

⇒ A Paucity of Hope

Perhaps it’s the natural result of living as a liberal in Nebraska, but I have always had very low expectations for politicians. I don’t expect them to represent my views, and I know that when they talk about sharing my values, they don’t mean my values. (For example, I happen to value equality over the “traditional definition” of marriage.) I just hope that things don’t get worse, and that they occasionally get a little better. Even that small hope is rarely justified.

This could be the point at which I would exclaim that Obama’s mantra of hope and change has encouraged my idealistic core to emerge from its hard shell of cynicism. But it hasn’t. Even at my tender age I can see how politicians come by every 2 to 4 years with flowery language and empty promises. They may even mean it, but the sausage factory that is Congress can turn even the best of intentions into 500-page behemoth bills that only partially accomplish the original goal with the added bonus of at least a dozen additional objectives and earmarks galore.

However, I think it’s the wrong choice to toss one’s hands up in exasperation and declare a pox on both their parties. There are differences, even from my extremely liberal perspective, although there might not be as many as I would like or in as many places as I would like. I would vote for the “Anybody but McCain” option, since it’s easier to dislike a candidate than to like another.

But I do like Obama. Or more accurately, I like how his candidacy has brought liberals out of the woodwork. I smile when I see an Obama sticker on a car in Nebraska. Showing support from Obama thus becomes a way to signal to others that we do have a presence in Nebraska. And the number of people builds as others begin to think, ‘Hey, maybe we do have a chance.’

Like a self-fulfilling prophecy, his campaign builds support by showing its current support. And so the hope generated by the campaign is not really about Obama. It is about all of the people who are planning to vote for him, and even us in Nebraska, who begin to think that we have a chance of giving him an electoral vote or two. I haven’t been watching the convention because the scripted pageantry bores me, but I can’t wait to see the reaction in the letters to the editor. I’m glad the 50-state strategy and Obama’ war-chest are bringing the electoral fight to Nebraska. It might be a small hope, but it’s the largest amount I’ve dared have in a long time.

Read Full Post »

⇒ Barack Obama and the lies people believe

A July Pew Research poll found that 12% of registered voters, when asked “Do you happen to know what Barack Obama’s religion is?” responded “Muslim.” Both 12% of Democrats and 12% of Republicans answered in this manner. Holy carp. I usually find letters to the editor to be a good barometer of a nation’s political zeitgeist, but other than a sly reference to his birth certificate, one thing I have not seem among letters to the editor are claims that Obama is Muslim, not an American citizen, or whatever new rumor is circulating the internet (I think I hang out in the wrong circles because I never get any of these emails). I’m not sure if this is because the editor won’t print such blatant lies, or if the conspiracy theorists who think such things avoid newspapers because they’re just part of the plot. Which makes a letter today in the Lincoln Journal Star the first I’ve seen on the topic, and an excellent one at that:

I am continually amazed by the stupid lies people will happily believe. It does not matter that it would only take one click on your computer or take the time to listen or read the whole quote, speech or story. No, it is so much more fun to just believe the lies. Maybe we could try a little truth for a change.

Sen. Barack Obama did visit the troops when he was in the Middle East on his congressional visit, but when he was in Europe with his campaign staff, the military suggested it might not be appropriate to visit the troops.

Obama, while giving a speech about his very detailed energy plan, was asked what we could do personally to lower our consumption. He replied that we could, among other things, keep our cars tuned up and our tires inflated. A good idea that has been suggested by AAA, the elder Bush and NASCAR, to name a few. But the John McCain campaign had to laugh and absurdly claim that the Obama energy plan was to inflate our tires; campaign workers even gave out cute little tire gauges. How sweet! After McCain told everyone they should wear sunblock every day, should the Obama campaign have started handing out tubes of sunblock and telling everyone McCain’s health-care policy was to wear sunblock?

If you disagree with Obama’s plan to work with the government in Iraq to get our troops out in 16 months, or you don’t want to see a big change in our country’s health care, or you don’t support his real energy policies after you actually know what his plans are, or you are happy with where our country is currently heading, that I can respect. Can we try being honest for a change?

If you hear a story about either candidate, please do a little research before you buy it hook, line and sinker. If you get an attack e-mail about a candidate, go to Snopes.com and make sure it’s true before you pass it on. We have a lot of problems and serious issues to deal with in the election. Let’s deal with the issues and drop the smears.

Actually, as a general rule it’s probably best to check snopes.com before forwarding any email that does not solely consist of pictures of adorable animals. I like to think of the internet as a big test of the truth of the adage “A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth has got its boots on.” How long does an email forward before someone replies that it isn’t true? Does the rebuttal reach all the same people? And there’s always the danger that a statement such as “Barack Obama is not a Muslim” will cause people to go “Aha! I knew it was true. And now they’re trying to cover it up!”

And yet, the extreme usefulness of wikipedia stands testament to the idea that truth really does have a fighting chance. Maybe lies can run faster, but the truth will always be there waiting, and those boots have cleats.

Read Full Post »

⇒ The Omaha paper will see the Lincoln paper’s three liberal letters and raise them four conservatives

If today was a bounty of liberal thought on the op-ed pages of the Lincoln Journal Star it was much the same for the Omaha World Herald in terms of conservative writers. Now, the Omaha paper generally publishes 12-15 letters to the editor per day, making them a reliable source of interesting letters, so it’s not as surprising to see a spate of pretty conservative letters, particularly since the Omaha World Herald leans to the right. And while liberals scored a shut-out in the Lincoln paper, the Omaha paper publishes enough letters that 5 of the 13 today were relatively non-political. The remaining letters were various shades of conservative, with four in particular showing a rather impressive strain of conservative thought.

First up is an irresistible little letter titled “How I define ‘liberal'”:

It appears to me that [an earlier letter writer], an apparent liberal, doesn’t know what the word “liberal” means. Let me explain it in a conservative kind of way:

A liberal is a person who wants to take the hard-earned money that I earn and give it to someone who has not earned it–without my permission.

I hope this will steer those who don’t know what “liberal” means in the “right” direction.

It appears to me that the letter writer does not actually know what his taxes go to support. Since income taxes are a pretty big chunk of change, let’s take a look at the 2007 Federal Budget broken up by type of spending to see what his taxes support:

2007 Federal Budget. Source: Washington Post.

The largest share goes to Social Security, which almost by definition is money supporting people who have earned it since you get Social Security based on past income. The next largest share is national defense, which I assume the writer fully supports. Medicare, like Social Security, goes to support the retired. Somehow I doubt the letter writer is referring to the elderly when he talks about people who haven’t earned his support. That brings us to 54% of the total Federal budget.

And finally we come to the section of the budget that I imagine he is envisioning when he complains about taxes going to support lazy bums. “Income security” programs include unemployment insurance, temporary assistance for needy families (commonly known as welfare), and health programs aimed at children, the poor, and the disabled. I guess the children and those disabled from birth haven’t really done much to earn his financial support either, but I doubt that those are the people he’s talking about either. I imagine his real gripe is with the fictional “welfare queens.” However, anyone who’s taken the time to read the TANF requirements will quickly find that no one is getting rich off of the program. So in the end, the part of taxes he doesn’t like is about equal to the amount we spend paying down the national debt.

Well, allow me to offer my equally-glib definition of a conservative: A conservative is a person who wants to enjoy the services supported by the government without paying to support them. I’m pretty sure that’s not what conservatism is about, but sometimes these letters make me wonder.

Next up is a letter hearkening back to the better times of the 50s and complaining about Obama. You know, that candidate who would have had a tough time voting in the 50s had he lived then:

Read Full Post »

⇒ Giving my first to a first

This November I will be able to cast my first vote for president. I was still three months shy of my 18th birthday on Election Day 2004, so I had to regretfully sit that one out. Since then I’ve voted in a fair number of elections, but I’m still excited to finally have a presidential election roll around now that I’m eligible to weigh-in on the outcome. I know that a single vote in a presidential election has never decided anything (Swing Vote’s main premise notwithstanding), but after following politics closely for months it offers the chance for closure. I did my duty and can therefore either accept my minuscule slice of the victory, or–far more likely–absolve myself from any blame.

On Election Day 2008 I’m going to vote for Obama. I think of it as giving my first to a first. Of course, race isn’t the main determinant, but the fact that it will be a historic vote does offer an extra impetus to go to the polls. When I’m old and have collected a large number of cats I look forward to being able to tell uninterested youth that I voted for the first black president. I look forward to their blasé attitude and complete disregard for the historical nature of it. “Historic” tends to go the way of the Dodo, and that’s pretty exciting.

I’m voting for Obama because I like his campaign. I would have been happy voting for Clinton too. In the primaries I was rooting for Richardson, but that’s because I have a huge bias towards Governors. I’m still rooting for Gov. Sebelius to be the VP pick. She’s the Democratic governor from Kansas, which ranks as pretty impressive in my book. I’m a great deal more liberal than Obama, but I recognize that a person representing the country is going to stick fairly close to the center. I can’t help but smile at the people who think Obama is on the far left. I am on the far left and from where I’m standing, Obama’s an awfully long way to the right. For a politician it’s always a good idea to hug the center.

Despite the distance, there are several areas where I think Obama will do a good job: national single payer health care, foreign policy (particularly Iraq), and supporting renewable energy. I may not agree with all the details, but I think the general direction of most of his policies is good. However, I strongly disagree with with his opposition to gay marriage. Some principles should not be compromised, and equality is one of them. Particularly since I suspect he doesn’t actually oppose gay marriage, and is just saying it to win some religious moderates.

But best of all I like that Obama is bringing in enough money to really implement the 50-state strategy. For too long the conversation in lot of conservative states such as Nebraska has been set by one side because the Democrats decided not to bother. But I know a lot of conservatives who would like a single payer health care system, but are afraid of “socialized medicine.” They’ve only been hearing one set of talking points, so they don’t have a good sense of what the Democrats are really proposing. I see the disinformation every day in the letters to the editor. There is still a populist heart beating out here in the prairie, softly. And I think, I hope, maybe, maybe it’s getting stronger.

Read Full Post »

⇒ More questions, more answers

A recent editorial from the York News-Times, the local York, Nebraska paper (not to be confused with the New York Times) gets right to the point with the title “Questions for the Left.” Being on the left, I decide to offer some answers. What can I say, us lefties are big softies.

There are many things those of you on the far left need to clarify, questions that need answered.

One of your most vicious attacks on George Bush is that you believe he’s a liar. Well we know that Barack Obama has lied to you about his position on FISA. Additionally, he now says that he’s consistently claimed more troops in Iraq would reduce the violence. However, his recorded statements in opposition of The Surge prove he insisted it would increase violence, not reduce it. By your criteria, he’s lying. Why aren’t you mercilessly attacking him, consistent with your attacks on the President?

There was certainly plenty of anger at Obama’s decision to sign the telecom-immunity bill. That said, one politically-caculated move to the center, while it may gall us, is not even comparable to the 7-and-a-half years of deceit, villainy, and stupidity we’ve had to endure from Still President Bush and his administration. When Obama has started a war based on lies, pillaged the environment, and enriched the wealthy at the expense of the poor, well, maybe we’ll give this analogy more than a passing glance. Also, the word “liar” is usually reserved for those who make a habit out of misleading others.

As for the Surge (or “The Surge” if you really believe it requires the capitalized definite article), I don’t disagree with Obama’s analysis. I’m still dubious about the lasting value of the current military efforts. Certainly things are going better than those first few years (when Bush kept insisting it was all hunky-dory), but it’s not much of an accomplishment to set the bar so low it makes a later mediocre showing look impressive by comparison. Next!

Read Full Post »

⇒ Nebraska Letters joins nation-wide Obama-blogging

Ruby’s Crush on Obama was specifically looking for Nebraska bloggers to commit to writing one post per week on Obama for the next ten weeks. I couldn’t resist the call and decided to sign up (becoming the first Nebraskan blogger to do so). Those interested in joining in can sign up here. Fellow conservative-state bloggers include:

• The World According to Me: A political blog based in Salt Lake City, Utah
• Dianne Perea’s Barack Obama Blog: a Colorado blogger focused on, you guessed it, Barack Obama
• The Progressive Electorate: Covering elections and candidates from Alabama
• Humming Bird Minds: a progressive blogger from Wyoming
• [push.to.talk]: An environmentalist blogging in North Carolina
• Common Sense Has a Voice: And it blogs from South Dakota

Posts written for this effort will be posted in the Obama category.

Read Full Post »

⇒ Nebraska and the 50 State Strategy

While watching the Daily Show last night I was pleased to see a political ad supporting Obama. The main reason was not the content of the ad–it was cute, but not much more–but rather because I almost never see national political ads. I happen to consume most of my media in Nebraska and since politicians write us off as a dependably red-state (an unfortunately accurate representation), they don’t bother to waste resources in a place where the outcome is considered predetermined.

This is a rather shortsighted decision; the success of an administration depends heavily on winning the down-ticket offices too and a strong presidential candidate can get people into the voting booths. Thankfully, Obama with his oodles and oodles of money has started putting resources into states long considered “safe.” The ad happens to be paid for by MoveOn.org, but it is indicative of Obama’s larger strategy. On July 17, he opened six offices in Montana. Montana. That’s practically Nebraska. The campaign is planning to deploy staff in every state, so I’m looking forward to getting our Nebraska offices because it’s exciting to get national attention.

This could be Nebraska soon!

The 50-state strategy takes on a particularly interesting wrinkle in Nebraska because our electoral votes are distributed by Congressional district using the Nebraska-Maine method. We’re one of only two states that uses it (I’ll let you guess the name of the other state). The Maine system awards two electoral votes to the state winner, but then distributes one electoral vote to the winner of each Congressional district.

Nebraska has never split its electoral votes during the past four presidential elections that the system has been in place. But there’s always a good time to start. The most likely Congressional district to turn blue–and it’s still a very long shot–is the 2nd Congressional district, which essentially consists of the Omaha metro area. The district even lends itself to an easy slogan: O-maha for O-bama.

Read Full Post »