Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

US Representative Lee Terry (R-NE, 2nd District) just e-mailed the results of a poll of his constituents revealing their attitudes towards certain pressing issues of the day. Included was everything from whether we should continue offshore drilling in the wake of the BP disaster to whether we should repeal the recently passed health care reform bill.

In results that should shock no one [for reasons I am about to explain--Ed.], Terry reported results reflecting that an average of over 77% of his constituents think about these issues the same way he does--which, for those of you out there [you ARE out there, aren't you?--Ed.] who read my postings, are diametrically opposed to my views on the same issues. Terry also reported that while a minority of around 20% of his constituents held views similar to mine, as many as 6% of his constituents were undecided on specific issues.

That's what gave me pause. For, you see, this poll's results were not the result of random, door-to-door canvassing of Nebraska 2nd Congressional District voters. These results came from 2nd District constituents ANSWERING an e-mail Terry himself had sent out to "ascertain" the public feeling. This "poll" was designed to elicit the answers it got, as you can be certain that at least 70% of the people who received it were Terry supporters because those voters make up the majority of his e-mail list.

Doubtless several people like me, who've contacted Terry regularly to express our opposition to his stands on particular issues, also got the e-mails, but we are in a preselected minority for several reasons which have nothing to do with the actual makeup and mindset of 2nd District voters in general. It's axiomatic that people tend to respond to and be more involved in things they support than things they oppose. So not only are those of us who oppose Terry's politics a predetermined minority of his potential polling population, we are less likely than Terry supporters to respond to Terry's e-mail poll invitation than are those who agree with him. People want validation, not rejection. That was Terry's motive in creating and distributing his "poll," and that was the motivation of most of the people who responded to it by agreeing with him.

The real problem with the numbers Terry reported, however, comes in the guise of the alleged "undecided" answers. In a "poll" such as this, where people participated by invitation, who is going to respond "undecided"? More likely, such folks just wouldn't respond at all. Terry said he got over 1,100 answers to his invitation to participate, but I do not recall seeing anywhere the total number of invitations he sent in the first place. Given that there are probably close to a million people living in the 2nd District as a whole, and that as many as half of them are not in the uber-urbanized metropolitan Omaha area, and given that many of them probably don't have computers or the time to respond to such e-mailed invitations as Terry's to begin with, it's impossible for Terry to claim that the 1,100 responses he received were any kind of valid scientific sampling.

This "poll" was much less an effort to find out what his 2nd District constituents think than it was a self-congratulatory exercise whereby he and his supporters could pat themselves on the back in mutual admiration. Mark Twain, as usual, was right. There are 3 kinds of data: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Guess which Twain held in the deepest contempt.

The Cow May Be Laughing, But I'm Not

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Are you familiar with the brand of cheese called "Laughing Cow"? I frequently wonder whether it was the inspiration for the California Happy Cow advertising campaign. But that's neither here nor there, at least not this morning. I heard a news report about Nebraska US House Representative Lee Terry (R) that inspired the title of this post.

First, a little background. Lee Terry represents my district in the US Congress--more correctly, he represents the rightmost of the right wing voters in my district. [When called to account for his stand on any particular issue, even when the illogic of his position is pointed out to him in the most polite, most rational way, his answer is essentially "I'm right and you're wrong--get over yourself. I represent the people who voted for me, not people like you."--Ed.] Note that this district comprises the metropolitan Omaha area, the most urban area of Nebraska. That's not to say that there are no farmers in this district; there are many--but when compared to the rest of the state, metro Omaha is like New York City compared to the Australian Outback.

Terry initially won office on what he said was an ironclad promise to enact term limits, and to abide by them even if Congress didn't enact them. When it was time for him to fulfill his promise, however, he reneged. He spouts the far-right GOP line on every issue like an automaton. He takes more advantage of the franking process than anyone else in Congress I've ever seen, and most of the mail he sends touts his allegedly starring role in all GOP pet projects, whether his role was microscopic or less. He runs dirty, negative election and reelection campaigns. He is nothing but a hack.

So imagine my lack of surprise when he tried to grab attention after the EPA announced its finding that excessive greenhouse gas emissions are dangerous to humans. He had the gall to question EPA administrators as to whether the EPA's stand meant that the EPA would now regulate methane emissions from cattle. It is true that cattle are the single largest source of methane emissions on the face of this earth. It is also true that he asked his question in a relatively [for him--Ed.] mild tone, indicating perhaps a bit of lightheartedness. It is also true that the cattle industry is a big deal in Nebraska.

But really, now! The EPA's guideline says "excessive." By definition, what cattle emit cannot be excessive. Cattle emit what they emit. And what's it to Terry, anyway? He represents an overwhelmingly URBAN area. You'd think he'd be glad the EPA was doing something that will ultimately improve the quality of the air in urban areas by reducing what belches from our vehicles and factories and power plants . . . But no--he had to go and ask an idiotic-on-its-face question, and one irrelevant coming from him, to boot. So the stereotype of Nebraska as a state full of rural rubes and hicks is reinforced.

The female EPA administrator [whose name I did not catch--my apologies to her and to anyone reading this--Ed.] answered Terry's question with a decency and grace I admit I could not have mustered. Kudos to her. But as for Terry? I'm not laughing. He embodies the worst of Nebraska politics. Back in the Seventies, Nebraska US Senator Carl Curtis responded to an objection about one of President Nixon's Supreme Court nominees by asking what was wrong with mediocrity. "After all, mediocre people need representation, too."

Where have you gone, William Jennings Bryan?

It's The Eleven O'Clock News

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

[Please see my 8/25/2008 post, "When 'Fairness' Isn't Fair" for background.--Ed.]

And here's the film: a Nebraska court has ruled that it does not have jurisdiction to change some of the wording in the non-official parts of the proposed constitutional amendment to end affirmative action; but that a few minor changes must be made in the wording of the text of the proposed amendment itself.

So the amendment, with this tweaking, will appear on the November ballot.

I'm still scratching my head about this whole thing, and still hoping that most Nebraskans will see through the smokescreen put up by the people pushing the amendment. However, I am not going to hold my breath.

When "Fairness" Isn't Fair

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

A current petition drive in Nebraska has people of all political stripes frothing at the mouth. Californian Ward Connerly is pumping tons o' money into the "Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative," which has been collecting signatures to add a ban on virtually all forms of affirmative action to Nebraska's November ballot. Apparently, he and his minions succeeded. They claimed Friday that they have turned in signatures from enough Nebraskans to put his measure to the vote this fall.

It is difficult to discuss this issue without feeling like I've fallen through Alice's looking glass and into Orwell's 1984. The group calling itself the "Civil Rights Initiative" is working to end an important civil rights tool. And the name of the group fighting the "Civil Rights Initiative" doesn't exactly stir up images of crusaders for justice and substantive equality. It's called "Nebraskans United." It has challenged the validity of most of the petition signatures on the twin bases of improper collecting techniques and unclear wording of the petition itself. I doubt it will succeed in keeping the ban off the ballot, however. There's too much money on the other side, even though "Nebraskans United" is on the side of the angels in this fight. Money talks, especially when the group with the money adopts a name that makes it seem as though it's the "good guy," that "black is white," and that it's the group favoring fairness--as the name "Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative" has done in this case.

I am not an uncritical fan of affirmative action, but I cannot think of a better way to provide immediate redress for the centuries of discrimination which various minorities in our society have suffered at the hands of the traditional white-middle-aged-male power structure. I feel about affirmative action the way Winston Churchill felt about democracy--it's the second worst form of government . . . after every other form of government. Affirmative action is the only reasonable means at present to redress effectively that which centuries of poverty and ethnic discrimination have wrought.

Affirmative action does this by eliminating the long ladder minorities have to climb just to get to the level of the playing field, not to mention a level playing field. When you are starting in the sub-sub-basement and everyone else is starting on the 10th floor, you are never going to get out of the sub-sub-basement unless employers are encouraged to make some allowances for the wide disparity between your and everyone else's starting points.

If you grow up in a poor neighborhood with lower property values and thus lesser-quality schools (since property taxes paid into the state determine where and how much the state and its local branches spend on education), and your neighborhood has been that way for decades, you not only have no good educational system to help you escape poverty, you have no family or neighborhood tradition of getting an education to rise above your initial, impoverished circumstances. Nevertheless, many--maybe even most--minorities come close to overcoming all the disadvantages heaped upon their heads from even before they were born. They go to school, they stay in school, they learn, they graduate. [They don't generally make the news, because they don't fit the media's "if it bleeds, it leads" mantra.--Ed.] But they need assistance in getting beyond the dead-end jobs available in their own neighborhoods.

Affirmative action provides the mechanism by which those who are close to climbing out on their own can climb out for good--it's a hand up, not a hand-out. No one has to hire as a librarian someone who, say, can't read--but if a minority member has an 11th-grade reading level and a white has a college-freshman reading level, affirmative action encourages hiring the minority member. Once hired, any employee still has to be a good and sufficient employee to KEEP the job. So affirmative action is just a way to get a fair shake at the starting line. One's own talents and abilities have to carry one from there.

Unfortunately, some of the rich bigots out there won't accept affirmative action. They are masters of pitting groups of the poor against each other, often on the basis of race, because they know that as long as poor whites and poor blacks are fighting each other, the bigots and their riches are safe from both. Hence Ward Connerly's interference in Nebraska politics. His published comments make clear he wanted to get his measure on the ballot in 5 states this year alone, but citizens in Arizona, Oklahoma, and Missouri have all already rejected his attempts. Only Nebraska and Colorado seem likely to vote on Connerly's proposal this fall. [Even that is two too many.--Ed.]

I cannot speak to what's happening in Colorado. When I lived there (in the early 1960s), Coloradans made Attila the Hun look like a flower child. One example: my mother helped with a neighborhood petition drive to get a crosswalk installed so that children could safely cross the 4-lane, 45 mph, road between us and our school. At least two people in the neighborhood wouldn't sign because they didn't have any kids, so it would do them no good and (allegedly) increase their taxes. Nice, huh? I guess civilization was a foreign concept to them, but their attitude was not uncommon. I have no idea whether Coloradans have since evolved beyond such troglodyte thinking.

In Nebraska, I am hoping that people who signed the petition did so because they thought they were encouraging fairness, not taking it away. My experience with most Nebraskans has been that they are more concerned with being fair than with being bigots. Connerly's minions played on this by making the petition's wording fuzzy enough to confuse anyone not paying very, very close attention (one of the things he's counting on, no doubt), and those soliciting petition signatures were told to say that signing the petition would "ensure fairness in Nebraska" for the future. I know this because I and several others got that very spiel when we were asked to sign but said "no" and tried to explain why. We were accused of being unfair for our positions. Yet we are the ones fighting for fairness! Through the looking glass and into 1984, indeed.

Nebraskans United is using the petition's fuzzy wording and alleged misconduct by those soliciting petition signatures to challenge the signatures' validity in court. The case is on an expedited calendar, given that the election is now only about 3 months away. Nebraskans United is also challenging the financing behind the petition drive, as the principal backer, Connerly, has no valid residential or business connections to Nebraska. The problem is this: the petitioners needed a total of 112,000 valid signatures to get the measure on the ballot. The so-called "Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative" group says it passed this number by a "comfortable margin." I interpret that to mean by more than 25% (or a total of at least 140,000), as one can presume from prior petition submissions that about 10% of all signatures collected will be ruled invalid even when everything done to collect them is unquestionably proper--as most assuredly was NOT done in this case.

Keep your fingers crossed that this abomination won't make the November ballot--or if it does, that Nebraskans, fundamentally sensible, will take the care and time to see through Connerly's smokescreen and vote the ugly thing down. Connerly doesn't live here. He shouldn't be allowed to taint elections here.

Film at eleven!

Score One For Me!

I am insufferably pleased to report that Nebraska Democrats overwhelmingly voted yesterday to nominate Scott Kleeb instead of Tony Raimondo to challenge GOP candidate Mike Johanns in November for the Nebraska US Senate seat that Chuck Hagel is vacating. Kleeb's margin of victory was something on the order of 70% to 30%, so it's not as if Raimondo lost a squeaker.

As I wrote yesterday, I was sure NE Democrats didn't like the relatively negative tone of Raimondo's campaign, especially when contrasted with Kleeb's much more positive one. I also think NE Dems were quite aware that Raimondo's running in the Democratic primary was pure opportunism as opposed to a real shift in his political ideology.

I can't be too gleeful in my prognosticating triumph, however. I was wrong about how Nebraskans would vote on this year's proposed Amendment 1, which would let governmental entities in the state invest like they were private businesses. I thought fiscally sensible Nebraskans would see through that, but no . . . they didn't. No one campaigned against it, to be sure. Moreover, our other US Senator, Ben Nelson, along with NE Attorney General Jon Bruning, made a frequently-run commercial in favor of it.

But geez! Doesn't anyone remember what happened in Orange County, CA, a few years ago? CA taxing entities had that kind of private investing authority, along with all the bells and whistles that were supposed to go off in the event of problems, so that the taxpayer's "investments" would be protected. None of that mattered. The county went bankrupt after losing literally millions of dollars on investments that were way too speculative to begin with, and which only got worse as the County Clerk tried to recoup his initial losses by making even more risky investments when he started losing money.

Oh, well. I think we get one more shot at it in November, and by then, I hope, cooler heads will prevail. I'm still keeping my bragging rights about Kleeb's victory, though. I don't know anyone else who predicted it.

All The News That Gives Us Fits To Print

Joe Biden, the senior Democrat on the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has proposed that Iraq be divided into three governing regions: Kurd, Shi'ite, and Sunni, with a central government in Baghdad.

I think he's been reading NE State Senator Ernie Chambers's additions to the recently passed Nebraska LB 1024, redrawing the Omaha Public School district into 3 smaller districts (one each primarily black, Hispanic, and white). For additional details, please read the last section of my earlier post, "No Wonder Our Society Is In Decline."

At least Biden doesn't have to worry about his proposal being unconstitutional. After all, Iraq is a foreign country. Separate is not inherently unequal over there. It's a survival mechanism. It is inherently unequal over here, however, and I hope we can do better by our various ethnic groups within America than implement LB 1024.

* * * * * * * * * *

I am not normally too het up about Douglas County, NE, politics, as I live across the line in Sarpy County. What happens in Douglas County normally affects me indirectly if at all. But the recent goings on in the Douglas County Treasurer's Office beg for comment.

The Treasurer is Julie Haney. A nineteen-year-plus employee in her department, Fred Cappellano, recently pleaded guilty to embezzling--over the course of several years--more than $120,000 from the office to fund his gambling habit. [He spent most of the money across the state line, in Iowa, by the way . . . which brings up a whole other set of issues around here, on which I may comment in a later post.--Ed] An outside audit first revealed the embezzlement. Haney did change office policies to prevent it happening again, but there is a big question as to how Cappellano was able to get away with it for as long as he did in the first place.

Cappellano promised to repay the embezzled funds as part of his guilty plea. Another employee in the Treasurer's office, Trish Lanphier, signed and passed on a sympathy card already circulating for Cappellano. Haney fired her for it. [Haney says there's more to it than that, but so far she has offered exactly zero to support her assertion.--Ed]

A Douglas County resident, David Karas, sent a letter criticizing Haney to the Omaha World-Herald, which dutifully published it in its Letters to the Editor column. "As a faithful Republican," Karas wrote, "it pains me to say this[, b]ut I won't be able to vote for Douglas County Treasurer Julie Haney this time around unless she reinstates Trish Lanphier. I was willing to forgive Ms. Haney for the lax management and policies that enabled Fred Cappellano to embezzle more than $120,000 from her office. But when she fired a staff member, apparently for circulating a harmless greeting card for a guy headed to prison, that was too much . . ." [Somehow, allowing Cappellano's embezzling to go on for as long as it did strikes this observer as the worse offense, but one must also recognize 'the straw that broke the camel's back' syndrome.--Ed.]

Haney has replied directly to Karas. She used the Treasurer's office official letterhead and paid the postage using the county's presorted postage rate. In her letter, Haney chided fellow Republican Karas, asserting that "[g]enerally speaking . . . Republicans are the last to jump to conclusions, don't believe everything they read and are usually patient enough and broad-minded enough to know there is 'the rest of the story' to be heard."

When asked about her letter, Haney first denied sending it. "I don't ever respond to any letters to the editorial sections," she claimed. The reporter then read her a portion of her letter to Karas. She thereupon switched her story, saying her letter was in response to an email he sent her. Once confronted with the fact that Karas never contacted her directly--by email, by phone, or in person--Haney brushed it off. "I answer so many things . . . That's been some time ago." She then defended not only answering the letter but doing it on county time and at county expense. She said she has a right to defend her office and her staff. [I see nothing defending her office or her staff in her letter--I see her defending herself and herself alone.--Ed.]

In response to this information, Karas noted to the World-Herald reporter covering the story that his letter did not criticize the office or the staff. It criticized Haney and her management style. [See? I was right!--Ed]

The big question, of course, is how in the world Haney's behavior here differs from Lanphier's in circulating the sympathy card for Cappellano. Especially after Haney said it was OK for her staff to express concern for a former colleague who was going to prison, but not on county time. Haney also claims that Lanphier was fired not for circulating the card but for what she did when Haney confronted her about it. I have yet to see anything in the news detailing just what bad deeds Haney alleges that Lanphier did, however.

Lanphier has [rightly, in this observer's opinion.--Ed.] appealed her termination. She's also running for Clerk of the Douglas County District Court. There's thus an additional implication that Haney doesn't like Lanphier's political ambitions, but that has yet to be addressed, let alone proven.

Karas had the best summation. "[Haney's] letter [and her reaction to being confronted about it.--Ed] basically proved everything I said. There is a pettiness and a vindictiveness there that makes me question her management style."

I see at least one deeply unpleasant fallout coming. If a man were to behave as Haney did,we'd shake our collective heads and wonder how he got to be such a crazy jerk . . . but when a woman does it, it somehow reflects poorly on the ability of every woman to hold a position of responsibility and authority. That's a shame. It's also just plain wrong. But we won't know whether my fears about this are well-founded until the fall campaign rhetoric inundates us, will we?

Puh-leeze!

Craig Ferguson (The Late Show, on CBS) has called the History Channel "The Hitler Channel: All Hitler, All the Time." That, I like. It's funny. But then, so is most of Craig's stuff. Nevertheless, it is not in the strictest sense true. For example, the History Channel frequently airs various programs explaining and extolling the virtues of the so-called "Bible Codes."

I don't pretend to understand the details, but these "Bible Codes" have to do with groups of connected words found hidden within discrete biblical passages when one uses a computer search engine and considers letters a set distance apart. (The searcher sets the distance in each instance; the only rule is that once the distance is set, it cannot be changed within the confines of that search.)

Proponents of these "Bible Codes" say that they are so complicated and detailed that they cannot be accidental, that the hand of God is obviously at work, and that no other literary work can duplicate or even come close to producing similar results. I know of at least one group of scientists who disproved this last point using Moby Dick, but there are substantial other reasons to doubt the presence of the hand of God in these "Bible Codes."

For one thing, just because we can look at clouds or stars and see pictures, patterns, or constellations, does NOT mean that those things are there. They came from our own individual creativity/imaginations.

For another, I cite the magician Penn Gillette, who said (regarding Nostradamus, but the point is just as well taken in reference to the "Bible Codes") that if these things were really there, we should be able to use them to predict, and thus forestall, impending disasters. But if we can see the events only after their occurrence, we again are imposing our vision on something that may or may not--but most probably does not--predict anything.

Hindsight is, after all, 20-20.

So why is it that the History Channel can go from running the occasional informative, smart, and insightful program to running this crap over and over and over? Doesn't anyone there exercise any editorial discretion?

* * * * * * * * * *

I do not frequently find myself in disagreement with Rainbow Rowell, but her column in today's Omaha World-Herald disappointed me. The students at Bellevue East (my alma mater when it was just plain Bellevue, by the way) staged a protest when the faculty and staff started strict enforcement of the school's dress code, and last Friday sent home everyone wearing ripped jeans.

The poor babies! About 200 of them staged a protest on Monday. While I do agree with Rainbow that their organizational skills are impressive, I find I have absolutely NO sympathy for the students and their alleged plight.

I guess I am turning into an old geezer or an old coot, but I remember when the Bellevue Public Schools dress code would not let females wear pants--even in freezing cold weather, girls were not allowed to wear pants while walking to school, even if they changed into proper dresses once at school.

In the ensuing decades, the dress codes have gone from being overly strict to being utterly non-enforced. Now, the pendulum is swinging back to center, and the students of 2006 are paying the price.

Even Rainbow had to concede that jeans so ripped that one's "unmentionables" were visible should not be allowed. I hope that she'd further stop to think that there's no easy way to draw up a dress code that would allow for SOME but not all ripped jeans . . . and so the smart and simple thing to do is to ban ripped jeans, period.

OK. I know the ripped jeans of the "Oughts" are the long hair of the Sixties. Still, long hair could be kept neat and clean, which by definition is impossible to do with ripped jeans (clean, maybe . . . neat? No). I also know that kids want to bug their elders, that they need to bug their elders, and that every generation finds its own "badge of honor" with which to do so.

Doesn't mean I have to like it. I think ripped jeans show an incredible lack of respect for not only the school and one's fellows, but mostly for one's own self. I am appalled that these kids' parents are supporting them and casting aspersions on the school.

On the other hand, I have always said that the Baby Boomers did a generally horrid job raising their children . . . mostly because we wanted to be their friends, not their parents (which doesn't work), and now our children's children are even worse off than we made our kids.

I thus am now officially a coot. Does this mean I have to relocate to Possum Lodge?

(In any case, I still don't see what's wrong with wanting to present oneself with a little dignity, class, and good taste. In that respect, at least, as compared to the students of 2006, who want to be different just like everyone else, I am still an iconoclast. Thank goodness!)

Nebraskans In The National News--What's All This, Then?

I just heard that Prez Dubya has nominated Nebraska Governor Mike Johanns to be the new Secretary of Agriculture. Maybe I've not been paying attention, but I am somewhat surprised by this development.

Why, you may ask, am I surprised? Well, let's start with the fact that the first Nebraska name bandied about in connection with this nomination was US Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE). Now that would have been a masterstroke if Ben had fallen for it. It would have gotten another ostensibly Democratic vote out of the Senate, and since Ben is a DINO according to many people around here, it would not have been bad for Dubya's ag policy, such as it is. Besides, it had the color of making good on Dubya's promise to be a uniter and a healer for the country as a whole. [Editorial comment, as if you needed it: NOT.]

Exact events are not clear: Ben is saying nothing; his staff is saying he was offered the job and turned it down (ever savvy, our Ben); Dubya's staff is saying the job was never offered, and that all the speculation was just Beltway nose-picking.

But Ben is facing reelection in 2006, and the word around these parts was that Mike Johanns was being groomed and in fact was already hand-picked to be Ben's opponent. After all, if Mike Johanns could win election as the mayor of Lincoln (which he did and was before he became Governor), the most liberal city in the state [Editorial comment: this is all relative, you understand], he most certainly could beat Ben in a Senatorial contest.

Doesn't becoming Secretary of Agriculture take Johanns out of the loop? I am mystified about the whole thing.

Perhaps some of my Lincoln friends will edify me by posting comments and details. Methinks we just aren't getting the news in the metro Omaha area that we need to understand this development.

In the meantime, hail and farewell to Tom Brokaw, who got his start back in the early '60s at the Omaha NBC affiliate. Network news has not been the same since Walter Cronkite retired, but Brokaw will be missed.