I am an environmentalist. I am also a Christian. These are mutually exclusive terms for many people but for me have become ever more intertwined over time. This perceived incompatibility has, I believe, been caused in large part by Western Christian eschatology, or our beliefs about the end times. There are several flavors of eschatological beliefs but their common thread is that, at some point, Christ will one day return to take the Christians, living and dead, away to heaven. Earth will then be abandoned or worse. While these beliefs are commonly held, they appear to be based more on Platonism than Christian scriptures, and I thank Bishop N.T. Wright for writing Simply Christian and Surprised By Hope, two volumes that challenge the status quo with incredible style, clarity, and biblical integrity. I will not even attempt to relay all of Wright’s arguments here, but, to put it succinctly, he contends and I am now persuaded that life after death for the Christian is not an ethereal, disembodied bliss but rather the physical resurrection of the dead for a new life with Christ here on earth. This has some amazing implication for the Christian hope, but the one relevant to this discussion is that the our expectation is not he abandonment of the earth, God’s creation, but its final renewal. And, until that incredible day, God invites us to join with him in renewing creation, bit by bit, by and through the renewal of our own lives. This is a big reason why I am an environmentalist.

I believe in my role as a steward. I too share Adam’s charge to rule over, tend to, and enjoy creation. I believe in protecting the land, air, and water from pollution, conserving wilderness, curbing sprawl, protecting endangered species, and conserving natural resources. I believe nature has its own inherent value.

I see America’s dependence on oil, not just foreign oil, and other fossil fuels as one of our largest liabilities. Our entire way of life is predicated on the existence of cheap energy in the form of oil, including the way we get to work, grow our food, transport our goods, defend our nation, and decide where to build and buy our homes. Seriously, would you have bought that 3000 square foot home 35 miles from work if gas were $10 per gallon and it cost you $500 a month to heat in the winter? No. At least not on my salary.

I think that we need to take peak oil very, very seriously. Peak oil is the concept that there is a point in time when the maximum amount of oil has been extracted from a given location. After that point, no amount of drilling or exploration will ever, ever yield more oil than from the peak year. Just like the United States oil production peaked in 1970, we will eventually see global oil production peak. And given the laws of supply and demand, prices will continue to rise until demand is cut. Some believe that global oil production has already peaked, and even the optimists say will be no later than 2020. Needless to say, I am opposed to further drilling and believe we need to aggressively pour resources into alternative energy. This summer’s spike in gas prices will only be the beginning without a deliberate move away from fossil fuels.

I believe in global warming, not because of Al Gore or any hype, but because scientific evidence is remarkably sound. This is a situation, if not stopped, that will impact all of us. We will, to varying extents, witness climates change, increasingly severe weather patterns, sea levels raise, and ecosystems damaged or destroyed. This will have significant health and economic impacts for us all, but especially for those in poor and unstable countries.

When comparing the candidates, I think John McCain wears his moderate hat relatively well when it comes to environmental issues. Of Republican candidates, he is the best man for enviros like me to have in the White House. In fact, he is the only Republican candidate to even include global warming as a part of his campaign agenda. He supports a cap and trade system to lower green house gas emissions (though he wants to give away credits at the beginning) by 60% below 1990 levels by 2050, increases in fuel economy, support for alternative fuels, and, for a time, opposed opening up ANWR and our coasts to additional drilling. Not so any longer. My initial concerns were that McCain simply didn’t take an aggressive enough stance on these issues. Additionally, his attempt this past summer to pass the “gas tax holiday” off as anything other than pandering was disgusting. But now, with Sarah Palin by his side, I am even more concerned. Her record on the environment is, well, abysmal. Can you say “drill, baby, drill”? John McCain is a step in the right direction for the Republican party but I think his plan is too little too late.

Barack Obama has a much more comprehensive and aggressive plan. His plan includes a cap and trade system that will reduce emissions by 80% from 1990 levels, $150 billion in alternative energy and green job investments, eliminate oil imports from the Middle East and Venezuela within 10 years, and encourage transit usage along with other forms of energy conservation. He opposes offshore drilling which I feel is a complete waste of time and resources. He support nuclear energy and clean coal research but with stringent pollution regulations. His plan is best positioned to address our dependence on fossil fuels and the looming climate crisis. He also likely to have the support of the Democrat-controlled Congress to make the aggressive changes for a serious situation that the Republicans have ignored.

As always, I encourage to to research these issues for yourselves. Here are some links to get you started on energy and environmental issues:
League of Conservation Voters - Voter’s Guide
Grist.org Election Coverage
John McCain’s Climate Change Plan
Barack Obama’s Energy and Environment Plan
Global Warming - Wikipedia
Peak Oil - Wikipedia
Crude Impact - Peak Oil documentary

Following a link in a recent comment here, I came to this post about Obama’s voting record on abortion, which he defended by saying attack ads referenced “votes taken out of context.”

The blog post in question says that a vote can’t be taken out of context - it’s a vote. I beg to differ, and agree with Obama that a vote can be taken out of context, even while disagreeing sharply with him on the issue of abortion.

First - to get this question answered from the start - I can in good conscience vote for Obama even while disagreeing with his positions on abortion. Why? Because I want there to be fewer abortions, and I believe that his social policies will lead to fewer actual abortions than McCain’s. Having a President who agrees with me is a far less important goal than actually reducing the number of abortions. See my post from the 2004 election season “Abortion in Context” for a fuller explanation.

If you want to paint Obama as a bad guy because of how he voted on a particular bill, you can do that, but let’s consider what else goes into a vote:

• The political motivations of both sides - often a bill is not really about what it says it’s about, but about political power struggles. People on both sides of the abortion debate seem to view any concessions that the other side may have a valid point as lost ground, even if there are no practical consequences to the ground in dispute.
• Bills are often loaded with junk - we’ve all heard how irrelevant garbage gets tacked onto bills that are sure to pass. During election season, though, if a bill has a nice ring to it, you’re toast if you vote against it, even if it contained a bunch of junk that had nothing to do with the emotionally appealing aspects of the bill.
• Bad bills can sound great in a short soundbite or attack ad, but can have major consequences that can’t be concisely explained in a counter-ad.

I haven’t investigated this particular bill from the Illinois legislature, so I don’t know whether the bill Obama voted against was a good one or not. I do know how I feel about abortion in general, and partial-birth abortion in particular - it’s one of the most reprehensible things humanity has devised. But the quality of the bill is something we need to ask about whenever judging a candidate for voting against a bill that we like the sound of.

I say that to say this: the fact that Obama voted a certain way on a certain bill that none of us have read does not justify painting him as a baby-killer. If you want to look into the bill itself, as well as the political environment in which it was proposed, and come to that same conclusion, go right ahead, but at least do some thinking along the way. Here’s a post that simultaneously calls Obama a baby-killer while documenting how politically motivated the entire thing was.

Even before the campaign started, I knew that unity would be my number one issue. The divisive politics of the 2004 election was utterly disappointing and left us a bitter, cynical, and entrenched nation. “America is better than this”, I thought and hoped that 2008 would reveal at least one candidate who would put forth a solid and consistent effort to rise above the pettiness of partisan foodfights and despicable campaigns. Very early on, I was struck by Obama’s message of change and unity. His optimism and rhetoric were a breath of fresh air after the murk of 2004, and I have since witnessed him draw people together from many walks of life and create a coalition of over 2 million ordinary citizens. Obama has treated all of his opponents with dignity and has, more than any other candidate, though not perfectly, risen above the crass pettiness that has defined American politics.

Additionally, I was absolutely thrilled when John McCain had secured the Republican nomination. In the years since 2004, I thought that John McCain would be a brilliant choice for President. His noble military service and his reputation as a maverick with an unwavering sense of integrity convinced me that he was the best Republican for the job. When the general election began, I was convinced that the McCain/Obama race would be respectful and mostly devoid of the low road, divisive campaigning of the past and that either man would bring integrity back to the White House. It turns out I was wrong.

In contrast to his reputation, John McCain has run a dishonest, “more of the same” campaign against Barack Obama, especially in recent weeks. I feel betrayed by McCain’s negative, half-truth (or no truth) attacks on Obama, especially after setting such high hopes for his campaign. I’ve spent considerable time reviewing FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com’s investigation of political attacks and it has been quite revealing. As an illustration, I tallied the truthfulness of 1) all attacks reviewed by PolitiFact.com toward the opposing candidate (Obama to McCain and vice versa) as of 9/13/2008 and 2) only those of the candidates themselves, not the party or surrogates. The results were that of 42 attacks made by McCain on Obama, only 9 (21%) were better than half-truths (mostly true or true).

One of the most recent of these egregious false attacks is McCain’s accusation that Obama is being sexist by indirectly yet deliberately referring to Sarah Palin, McCain’s running mate, as a pig. This is nothing less than a lie. It is clear, if you listen to the clip, that Obama is referring to John McCain calling his own policies “change”. McCain’s policies, Obama contends, are no prettier by calling them “change” just as a pig is no prettier by wearing lipstick. But McCain has willfully distorted the truth and created a false controversy to distract voters from the real issues. McCain’s dishonestly quickly descends into hyprocrisy since he himself used the exact same phrase in reference to Hillary Clinton’s healthcare plan. And McCain, when confronted on his dishonest ad in a recent television appearance on The View, maintained that his position is the truth and denied any wrongdoing. These are simply lies. This is just one of many examples. McCain states that Obama supported “legislation to teach ‘comprehensive sex education’ to kindergartners.” A lie. McCain states that “Obama says Iran is a ‘tiny’ country, ‘doesn’t pose a serious threat.’” Another lie. McCain states that Obama will raise taxes. A half truth. Obama will actually lower taxes for 95% of the country!

In contrast, 18 of 30 attacks initiated by Obama toward McCain were more than half-truths. This is 60% truthfulness for Obama to McCain’s 21%. These “statistics” should obviously be taken with a grain of salt and be washed down with some serious research, but they do reflect the trends I have witnessed in this campaign. I certainly wish that Obama’s 60% was 100%, but I really think that these candidates are in different leagues. For instance, Obama’s most recent misleading attack states that McCain said “no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investment in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels.” Obama generalizes McCain’s energy record when it is in fact a rather mixed bag. But compared to McCain’s most recent attack - well, there’s really no comparison. Even Karl Rove thinks McCain has gone too far.

I encourage you to examine the what both candidates are saying and make an educated decision for yourself. When and why is he honest or untruthful? What does this tell me about the man? Does he have integrity? How will he lead the country? Who will bring us together to tackle the big issues that face us? Who appeals to the best in us as a people? For me, John McCain has been a disappointment. He may rather lose an election than lose a war, but he seems to rather win an election than keep his integrity. This is Bush/Rove politics all over again. Barack Obama, in most ways, has worked to move beyond paltry campaign tactics of the past. He is not perfect. He is not the savior of America. He is, after all, a politician. But he has thus far maintained his integrity, tackled divisive issues in inclusive ways, and brought out the best in us, in me, as Americans.

More on the issues next.

I was 20 years old when I voted in my first presidential election in 2000. Having been raised in a rural, conservative Ohio community and church and attending a conservative Christian college in Arkansas at the time of the election, I found my decision to be simple. Scan the ballot until I found the ‘R’ for Republican. That ‘R’, I was led to believe, assured me that this man had integrity, shared my core values, and would make each decision in accordance with those values, even on issues that I did not understand or care much about. If a man didn’t even have the sense to see that abortion should be illegal, then he obviously couldn’t be trusted on other matters (like personal integrity, energy, war, healthcare, and the economy). I find election decisions much more difficult these days.

Since 2000 I graduated from college, got married, left small town America, moved to the big city, worked hard, made money, started a family, read quite a few books, and have made some amazing friendships with people raised both similarly to and quite differently from me. These experiences have shaped me and made me a much more complete person, not by exhuming my conservative self and replacing him with a liberal counterpart but by seeing the world through the eyes of others and learning what they have to teach. Now it is 2008 and I simply can’t can’t scan for the the ‘R’ (or ‘D’) to choose my candidate. I have put much thought, research, and prayer into selecting a presidential candidate to support. My decision has piqued the interest of many friends who have known me for a long time, so I have decided to write a series of posts to attempt to explain why I have decided to vote for Barack Obama.

Look for more soon.

Here is my daily effort to deepen the debate on the 2008 Presidential race:

In this debate, Hillary just has that “My husband was President and I want to continue the dynasty” crown thing going on. Or maybe it’s just an NBC logo. Either way, it looks funny over her head.

Defective Yeti (AKA Matthew Baldwin) is blog-hosting National Novel Reading Month, the less-ambitious alternative to National Novel Writing Month. He also hosts WriAShorStorWe, or National Write A Short Story Week, though that’s a matter for another time and place.

NaNoReMo last year focused on the horribly dull but nevertheless famous novel Moby Dick. Even Matthew did not finish. This year, the book is the (hopefully) more exciting and relevant classic Catch-22. You can follow Matthew’s NaNoReMo posts here.

Matthew is a very funny guy, and will do a great job of getting people through the book, so I’ve decided to read along. Interested? Pick up a copy of the book and read along with me.

I’m not sure if I’ve mentioned this before here, but I have decided to support Barack Obama for president. One of the things I like about Obama is that he doesn’t take money from political action committees or lobbyists - all his campaign contributions come from individuals.

Obama’s campaign contributions have come from over 350,000 people so far - more than all the other democratic candidates combined.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has accepted money from PACs and lobbyists, and consequently beat Obama in the last count of campaign contributions. Obama is catching up, and probably will surpass her again (as he has in every other reporting period).

I’m proud to be part of Obama’s campaign in some small way, because I respect his stance toward campaign finance and a host of other issues. Clearly, there’s a lot of money to be had from PACs and lobbyists. He’s passing that up to make a statement about integrity and to ensure that his only mandate after the election is to the people, not to special interests.

I was educated (at Harding) to be opposed to special interest groups (thanks, DPD). Money talks far more than it should, and it’s time for the people’s money to talk for the people’s interests, rather than for powerful lobbies to throw their weight around over against the interests of the public.

I believe this is one of the central issues of democracy - to restore power to the common person. That’s one reason I’m supporting Obama.

Davis Wright Tremaine - you guys give lawyers a bad name.

DWT sued the Seattle School District on behalf of a group of parents and prevailed in the Supreme Court. It was a landmark decision, and a highly controversial one. DWT took the case pro bono, and there was no financial award to the plaintiffs, who were seeking (and won) the demise of the race-based tiebreaker, a Seattle School District policy that allowed the District to assign students to schools in a manner that would enhance racial diversity. All else being equal, a student who would be in the minority at a popular school would be granted preference over a student of a majority group at that school.

Suing school districts is not inherently a bad thing, and is sometimes necessary, though I won’t comment on this case.

But now DWT is seeking to recover legal fees from the school district, even though it fought the case for free. They want a staggering $1.8 million, which is several times what the district spent on its own legal fees.

This is not money that would go to the plaintiffs; it’s money that goes to the same lawyers who promised to fight the case for free. This money will not come from insurance; it will come directly from the operating budget of a public school district.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will decide whether to award DWT the fees; fortunately, the 9th Circuit sided with the District in the original case, though their decision was overturned by the Supreme Court.

I can’t see how this could be good PR for Davis Wright Tremaine. What kind of firm would sue a school district, supposedly for free, then try to collect fees at the expense of public education?