I got blasted in two letters this week for this cartoon:

Cartoon in poor taste

I thought Neal Obermeyer’s editorial cartoon (LJS, Aug. 10) was in especially poor taste, and you should not have run it. Regardless of how you feel about the topic of abortion (in any form), referring to the ruthless murder of Dr. Tiller as a “hint” condones lawless behavior and insults Tiller’s survivors.

The editorial page may be wide open, and I support your right to free speech, but that right comes with some social responsibility and you failed to show any restraint. Shame on you.

Mark Forster, Lincoln

An insult to faith

I must take strong exception to the Neal Obermeyer cartoon published in the Aug. 10 Journal Star. To label the slaying of Dr. George Tiller a “hint” is an affront to those on both sides of the right-to-life question who believe in the rule of law in this country, and suggests Obermeyer’s approval of the accused killer’s actions. The gunning down of Tiller in a church was a cold and cowardly act of murder - nothing less. To call it anything else insults all people of faith who believe there are no exceptions to the sixth commandment.

Alexander Currie, Lincoln

The murder of Dr. Tiller was clearly supposed to send a message to other doctors that continuing to perform these services will put a target on your head. Threats of violence are inexcusable. What I was attempting to do with the cartoon was expose the awfulness of this reality by putting it in a sort of silly, flippant context (sort of like in previous cartoons like this and this), juxtaposing something serious with something truly mundane in hopes that the contrast would emphasize the vileness of the situation. I clearly failed.

Enjoy this online comic about the healthcare bills so far. I got a kick out of Wax-Man, and I’m admittedly anxious to see what happens…

Voice of San Diego’s Rob Davis describes Kittle’s legacy as the Union-Tribune’s former editorial page editor:

“He was very liberal with the facts,” [Councilmember and former mayoral candidate Donna] Frye said. “And had a great disregard for truth. Name-calling goes with the territory. That doesn’t bother me. But what bothered me was the absolute lack of factual information. When facts are deliberately tortured, that’s not ethical journalism.”

More recently, Kittle engaged in few battles that were as vitriolic as his fight with Mike Aguirre, the former city attorney. The irony in their sometimes petulant squabbles: Kittle had endorsed Aguirre in 2004. That was a short romance.

They clashed over pension issues. They clashed over Sanders’ proposed reforms. And as in many knock-down fights, they clashed over the irrelevant, such an Aguirre aide’s use of foul language. Aguirre eventually started his own blog, largely dedicated to refuting Kittle editorials.

One 2007 editorial accused Aguirre of violating campaign finance laws. The local Republican Party jumped on the news. GOP officials marched into the City Clerk’s Office — TV cameras watching closely — to file an ethics complaint against Aguirre.

But the editorial’s accusation was baseless.

from the Omaha Reader

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who opposes the House and Senate health care bills:

“It does us no good to incite fear in people by saying that there’s these end-of-life provisions, these death panels,” Murkowski, a Republican, said. “Quite honestly, I’m so offended at that terminology because it absolutely isn’t (in the bill). There is no reason to gin up fear in the American public by saying things that are not included in the bill.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), considered by folks like Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, Kent Conrad and Barack Obama to be a good-faith negotiator and key player in the quest to develop a bipartisan health compromise:

“There is some fear because in the House bill, there is counseling for end-of-life,” Grassley said. “And from that standpoint, you have every right to fear. [...] We should not have a government program that determines if you’re going to pull the plug on grandma.”

from the Lincoln Journal Star

Here’s hoping Carhart fares better than Tiller.

Heavy on the healthcare this month, but that’s to be expected when you can’t read the local news without seeing Ben Nelson making another stupid comment sticking up for the poor endangered insurance industry. I think he’s looking out for me, making sure I keep cranking out the angry doodles.

10.

9.

(more…)

The results of a recent Gallup survey showing Nebraska shifting from “lean Republican” to “competitive” have generated some discussion, particularly centered around the surprising percentages of Nebraskan who claim to favor Democrats and those who favor Republicans.

Here’s a comparison between the poll results, 2008 voter registration numbers and 2008 presidential election results:

Gallup survey results:
Respondents favoring Democrats: 43%
Respondents favoring Republicans: 42%
Neither / other: 15%

2008 Voter Registration:
Democrats: 34% (393,468)
Republicans: 49% (558,308)
Independents: 17% (195,459)

2008 Presidential Election Results:
Barack Obama: 42% (333,319)
John McCain: 57% (452,979)

Naturally, as outlined in Don Walton’s Journal Star story, different sides are going to have different reactions to these results, but all of the response I’ve seen seems to focus on the surge in Democrats’ numbers — whether they’re a sign of a shift in Nebraskans’ attitudes or an already-outdated relic of post-election enthusiasm. For example, there’s this recent post at Lincolnite.com, in which Mr. Wilson said

The data come from the first six months of 2009. The first few months of that period were marked by heavy Obamaphilia; skepticism and cynicism are now setting in. I suspect data from the second half of 2009 won’t be quite as favorable.

In the discussion about the accuracy of the apparent nine percent gain for Democrats, no one seems to be mentioning that there is a near inverse seven percent drop for Republicans. I can see Obama enthusiasm pulling self-identifiers from the Independent / Other category to Democrats, which it may be doing, but notice that the Independent / Other breakdown between registration and self-identification is fairly steady (17% to 15%). The obvious assumption would be that seven percent of Republicans shifted to that “other” 15%, choosing to not identify themselves with their party, and I don’t think Obama enthusiasm can tell that whole story.

But let’s say Mr. Wilson (who echoes the thoughts of Republican Chairman Mark Fahleson) is correct, and the shift is temporary Obama enthusiasm. If that assessment is accurate, it would demonstrate a relationship between Obama approval and party identification that hasn’t existed nationally.
(more…)

from the Lincoln Journal Star

Some friends pointed out to me that the Daily Show made a similar joke. I was leaning toward pulling the cartoon because of that, but after viewing the video the folks at the LJS decided the cartoon was different enough to still be worth running. Maybe this incident will help keep me off my high horse the next time another big cartoonist groupthink moment happens.

But speaking of groupthink, Nebraska StatePaper.com publisher David Hahn decided to enter the birtharena yesterday. Just a word of warning to potential birthers — offering a defensive disclaimer that you’ll probably get labeled a birther doesn’t make your birtherism any less birtherrific.

You know you’re in for a treat when a column includes a line like “We have not checked sources, but there are reports that some witnessed his birth in Kenya.” On its own, a line like that seems lazy and irresponsible. It’s downright jaw-dropping when you consider that kind of recklessness is part of a column about getting the facts out and setting the record straight.

Hahn offers up what I like to call Sensible Birtherism™ — you distance yourself from the actual birthers, even perhaps suggesting you’re above the fray, yet you still legitimize and advance their claims by acting as if there is still a legitimate issue. The most popular version of this is “Obama should be doing more to respond to these critics.” You get to pretend as if you’re detached and objective, yet you — like the birthers — still choose to ignore the most significant facts — that Obama has provided proof, he has allowed reputable third parties to see the proof and he already has responded to the conspiracy theorists (see FighttheSmears.com, the website he set up during the campaign in an attempt to set the record straight regarding various baseless conspiracy theories) — and none of that is good enough.

And even if he were to release his original birth certificate and send it around the country to each individual birther to inspect, that would still be insufficient. Alex Koppelman at Salon points out that birthers have come up with an 18-point list of proof demands beyond the original, and prominent birthers like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage started casting preemptive doubts on the original document starting back in October 2008.

UPDATE: David Hahn responded to Kyle Michaelis’s post on the topic at NewNebraska.net.

from the Omaha Reader

Michael Snider, the business owner who is featured in the Democracy for America commercial, spoke with the Huffington Post about a phone call he received from Senator Nelson regarding the commercial:

“I told him I didn’t understand. And he tried to explain it. He put his position out. He said if we went with a full public option — which he called a government plan — it would drive the price down and hurt private companies. I said, ‘you mean competition.’ And he replied that it would force people off the private plan and onto the government plan.”

“That happened twice,” Snider concluded. “He was telling me how bad a public option would be and when he was done I said, ‘So you don’t support a public option.’ He would reply, ‘That’s not what I say.’”