Hey, Buddy ... Can You Spare $5 Trillion?

Paul Krugman's latest column, "Bush Made Permanent," looks at John McCain's tax plan. Never was the name McSame more appropriate.

What with all the excitement over lapel pins and bowling scores, you probably don't have much more than a vague sense that this plan would be a disaster sufficient to give Grover Norquist wet dreams. Let Prof. Krugman lay out the specifics for you, in a mere 700 words. I was going to give the money quote, but that pretty much would have meant copying the whole thing.

Remember that PK was among the first to see through W's fiscal smoke and mirrors, way back there in 2000. Please don't ignore him this time around. We can't afford it.

Theocracy on the March, Part II

The National Day of Prayer has been around in the US in various forms since the beginning of the country. The latest incarnation stems from 1988, when Ronald Reagan signed into law a bill designating the first Thursday in May as the official NDOP.

Those of us who interpret the Constitution's freedom of religion clause to include freedom from religion aren't particularly enamored of such legislation, obviously. The original spirit appeared harmless enough: most people who paid attention to the NDOP saw it as a way to promote ecumenicalism. Recent developments, however, demonstrate why it's always a good idea to oppose such mixing of church and state from the start.

Last Thursday's MojoBlog reports the following. Shirley Dobson, the wife of James Dobson, has been designated chairperson of something called the National Day of Prayer Task Force. James Dobson, whom I've described before, is the head of Focus on the Family, a politically powerful organization of fundamentalist evangelical Christians. It is no stretch to call them The American Taliban.

Shirley Dobson and her task force are basically a subsidiary of Focus on the Family. They work out of the same offices. Lately, they have been portraying themselves as officially in charge of the National Day of Prayer. How's that's working out? About the way you'd expect:

According to Jay Keller, national field director of the Interfaith Alliance, Dobson has made a point of "excluding Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Buddhists, and even mainline Christians" from the National Day of Prayer.

Thanks to Dobson, this year's task force volunteers are required to sign pledges, stating: "I commit that NDP activities I serve with will be conducted solely by Christians while those of differing beliefs are welcome to attend." Volunteers must also affirm that they "believe that the Holy Bible is the inerrant Word of The Living God" and that "Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the only One by which I can obtain salvation and have an ongoing relationship with God."

Keller is not exaggerating. Here's the full text of the pledge section, copied from the application posted on the task force's web site.

Statement of Belief:

I believe that the Holy Bible is the inerrant Word of The Living God. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the only One by which I can obtain salvation and have an ongoing relationship with God. I believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, his virgin birth, his sinless life, his miracles, the atoning work of his shed blood, his resurrection and ascension, his intercession and his coming return to power and glory. I believe that those who follow Jesus are family and there should be unity among all who claim his name.

Here is an excerpt from the application's "Coordinator Qualifications:"

I agree to utilize and follow copyright usage of the NDP Task Force promotional materials to 1) perpetuate the annual theme and national media opportunities and 2) ensure a strong, consistent Christian message throughout the nation. I commit that NDP activities I serve with will be conducted solely by Christians while those with differing beliefs are welcome to attend.

Note also, in the same application, this additional bit of smarminess:

Official Policy Statement on Participation of "Non-Judeo-Christian" groups in the National Day of Prayer:

The National Day of Prayer Task Force was a creation of the National Prayer Committee for the expressed purpose of organizing and promoting prayer observances conforming to a Judeo-Christian system of values. People with other theological and philosophical views are, of course, free to organize and participate in activities that are consistent with their own beliefs. This diversity is what Congress intended when it designated the Day of Prayer, not that every faith and creed would be homogenized, but that all who sought to pray for this nation would be encouraged to do so in any way deemed appropriate. It is that broad invitation to the American people that led, in our case, to the creation of the Task Force and the Judeo-Christian principles on which it is based.

There may be an upside to this. Most people of faith tend not to confront extremists like Dobson. This has been a problem, since it has allowed the wingnuts to grow unfettered. On the other hand, their increased prominence brings into the spotlight their exclusivity and intolerance. It may not be an empty hope to think that it's getting to the point where the wingnuts will provoke active revulsion not just in people like me, but among those religious people who have stayed silent for too long.

USA Today, The Carpetbagger Report, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State have more.

Theocracy on the March

Via Instaputz and LGM, I came across an article in the NYT describing religious discrimination in the US armed forces. The piece starts by describing a particular incident:

When Specialist Jeremy Hall held a meeting last July for atheists and freethinkers at Camp Speicher in Iraq, he was excited, he said, to see an officer attending.

But minutes into the talk, the officer, Maj. Freddy J. Welborn, began to berate Specialist Hall and another soldier about atheism, Specialist Hall wrote in a sworn statement. “People like you are not holding up the Constitution and are going against what the founding fathers, who were Christians, wanted for America!” Major Welborn said, according to the statement.

Major Welborn told the soldiers he might bar them from re-enlistment and bring charges against them, according to the statement.

Last month, Specialist Hall and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an advocacy group, filed suit in federal court in Kansas, alleging that Specialist Hall’s right to be free from state endorsement of religion under the First Amendment had been violated and that he had faced retaliation for his views. In November, he was sent home early from Iraq because of threats from fellow soldiers.

[...]

... Timothy Feary, the other soldier at the meeting, said in an e-mail message: “Jeremy is telling the truth. I was there and witnessed everything.”

The article tries to get at the larger problem. The official word offers statistics to imply the problem is not widespread:

There are 1.36 million active duty service members, according to the Pentagon, and since 2005, it has received 50 formal complaints of religious discrimination, [Defense Department spokeswoman Eileen] Lainez said.

On the other hand:

... Mikey Weinstein, a retired Air Force judge advocate general and founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said the official statistics masked the great number of those who do not report violations for fear of retribution. Since the Air Force Academy scandal began in 2004, Mr. Weinstein said, he has been contacted by more than 5,500 service members and, occasionally, military families about incidents of religious discrimination. He said 96 percent of the complainants were Christians, and the majority of those were Protestants.

Complaints include prayers “in Jesus’ name” at mandatory functions, which violates military regulations, and officers proselytizing subordinates to be “born again.” After getting the complainants’ unit and command information, Mr. Weinstein said, he calls his contacts in the military to try to correct the situation.

“Religion is inextricably intertwined with their jobs,” Mr. Weinstein said. “You’re promoted by who you pray with.”

Two things to note about Weinstein's report: First, it's hardly surprising that most soldiers are reluctant to make complaints through official channels, especially in a combat zone, especially if they perceive most of their superior officers to be part of the problem.

Second, it's amazing how many of the complaints were sent in by soldiers self-identifying as Christians. This suggests the messages provoking the complaints must be particularly noxious.

Oh, and by the way? Maj. Welborn, the officer accused at the start of the article with threatening persecution, refused to be interviewed for the article, beyond saying:

I’d love to tell my side of the story because it’s such a false story.

I'm pretty sure how my fellow godless heathens will interpret that line. Probably just as well for him that he stopped there.

Rich Thoughts

Frank Rich tells Dems to calm down in his column this week, and among other points, makes an observation about the PA primary that I hadn't thought of:

... few noticed that on this same day in Pennsylvania, 27 percent of Republican primary voters didn’t just tell pollsters they would defect from their party’s standard-bearer; they went to the polls, gas prices be damned, to vote against Mr. McCain. Though ignored by every channel I surfed, there actually was a G.O.P. primary on Tuesday, open only to registered Republicans. And while it was superfluous in determining that party’s nominee, 220,000 Pennsylvania Republicans (out of their total turnout of 807,000) were moved to cast ballots for Mike Huckabee or, more numerously, Ron Paul. That’s more voters than the margin (215,000) that separated Hillary Clinton and Mr. Obama.

And:

Those antiwar Paul voters are all potential defectors to the Democrats in November. Mr. Huckabee’s religious conservatives, who rejected Mr. McCain throughout the primary season, might also bolt or stay home. Given that the Democratic ticket beat Bush-Cheney in Pennsylvania by 205,000 votes in 2000 and 144,000 votes in 2004, these are 220,000 voters the G.O.P. can ill-afford to lose. Especially since there are now a million more registered Democrats than Republicans in Pennsylvania. (These figures don’t even include independents, who couldn’t vote in either primary on Tuesday and have been migrating toward the Democrats since 2006.)

The whole thing also includes some funny lines about McCain.

What You Don't Know

This week's On the Media starts off with an interview with Maj. Robert Bevelacqua. Bevelacqua was one of the sources quoted in the recent NYT exposé of the cozy relationship among TV military "analysts," the Pentagon, the Bush Administration, and defense contractors. If you didn't make it through the whole NYT article, this interview gives a good introduction to the goings-on. If you did make it through the whole article, you might get some additional sense of how it all worked by listening to Bevelacqua.

The second segment is an interview with Kevin Phillips, who describes how the government has, for several decades at least, been misleading the public in the way it measures and reports statistics like the unemployment rate and the GDP.

The rest of the segments are not quite as bleak. You may feel a need for them after the first two. The whole show is outstanding, in any case.

One Point

Hillary Clinton won the primary in Pennsylvania, which might be news if you're just returning to this planet. With 99% of the vote counted, she has 54.7% of the popular vote and Obama has 45.3%.

Those of you trained in subtraction will notice that her margin of victory is 9.4%, or, rounding to whole numbers, 9%. However, I predict the Clinton campaign will round 54.7% up to 55% and 45.3% down to 45%, and then trumpet their "double-digit win."

Not that I'm saying she's dishonest. As far as I know.

In other campaign news that you might actually have missed, John McCain has been outed for a series of dubious pay-for-play transactions. There's probably a joke to be made about Diamond and the rough, but hanged if I can come up with it.

New To Me: Momentarily

Just started listening to this week's podcast of Poli-Sci-Fi Radio. Host Bill Simmon said, while making last minute tweaks, that we'd be hearing the show in "just a moment." Not, he stressed, "momentarily."

Bill claims that momentarily means "for a moment," and not "in a moment." This drives him particularly batty on airplanes, when flight attendants say, "We'll be taking off momentarily."

This concern is not his alone, apparently.

Co-host Steve Benen cracked up (NB: laughed, didn't go crazy) and said in response, "That train has left the station," meaning enough people make this mistake that it's futile to insist upon correcting it. I sure didn't know that this usage was incorrect.

Ruh roh. Time to scour everything I've written on the Web?

This gripe of Bill's calls to mind hopefully, which used to mean only "filled with hoped," but has since become accepted, also, to mean "it is to be hoped" or "I hope." I think even Safire surrendered on this one, after fighting for the distinction most of his life.

I feel your pain, though, Bill.

Neologism of the Day: 2008-04-22

Coined by Andrew Sullivan, to describe the baseless smears against Barack Obama: McTruthyism.

Uncommon Sense

From Brando, musing about music, specifically, the songs that have been most significant in his life:

I was also not a liberal until late in life, as it took me a long time to divorce the conservative beliefs I inherited. Nothing sped up that process like the events after 9/11, when I watched terrorists use murder to supposedly promote freedom, and then watched our government squash freedom to ostensibly fight terror.

The song that provoked this epiphany?

"(What's So Funny 'Bout) Peace, Love, and Understanding."

Java Update

Brian Krebs reports that Sun has released a new version of Java, which includes several bug fixes and a patch for "at least one security vulnerability." He also notes, and good for him, that Sun's usual method of notifying home users lags behind their releases, and that the page Sun offers to verify that you have the latest version is typically a little behind.

Depending on what part of Sun's site you want to believe, this is either version 1, release 6, or version 6, release 6. The important part is "release 6." The confusion in the major version number (1 or 6) is something to do with a never-ending battle between marketroids and developers. 'Nuff said.

If you're paranoid like me and you want the latest version, getting it is not particularly hard. Assuming that you just want the basic hunk of Java that lets your browser do its thing, visit this page and scroll down to where it says "Java Runtime Environment (JRE) 6 Update 6." Click the corresponding "Download" button. On the next page, choose your operating system. (Windows people: don't pick "Windows x64" unless that's what you really have. Just pick "Windows.") Check the box that says you agree to the license blah blah. Click "Continue."

On the next page, look for the section headed "Windows Offline Installation." Right-click the link labeled jre-6u6-windows-i586-p.exe and from the pop-up context menu, choose Save link as …. The file dialog box pops up. Save the file to your desktop. (Some of the latter details will differ if you're using a different operating system, obviously.)

After the file has finished downloading, double-click its icon to install. Accept all defaults. Close your browser and restart it. For a moment of irony, revisit the verification page to confirm that you have the latest version installed. (You will see that the new version is listed: 1.6.0_6.) Delete the file that you downloaded to your desktop.

As Krebs also reminds us, Sun is still unable to remove previous versions as part of the process of installing upgrades, so if you're as fastidious as me, use Windows's Add/Remove Programs to uninstall the old versions. Make sure not to delete the latest -- which will appear as "Java(TM) 6 Update 6."

What if you don't want to go through this? I suppose you could wait until Sun's update mechanisms notify you in the usual way, and trust to your otherwise safe surfing habits. It's probably not that big a deal.

Of course, while you're dilly-dallying, the terrorists will have won.

FT says about HRC: "Too many course corrections, not enough course."

The Financial Times, the world's largest financial newspaper, has endorsed Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination, acknowledging the similarities in policy proposals, and basing their recommendation mostly on his character and the evidence he has displayed in running a better campaign.

Excerpt:

Mr Obama has fought a brilliant campaign, out-organising his opponent, raising more money, and convincing undecided Democrats as well as the country at large that he was more likeable, more straightforward and more worthy of trust.

On form, he is a spell-binding orator and holds arena-sized audiences in thrall. He is given to airy exhortations, it is true, but genuinely seeks consensus and has cross-party appeal.

Mrs Clinton’s campaign, in contrast, has been a shambles. She and her team expected to have it all sewn up long ago; they made no plans for a long struggle, ran short of money and had to reorganise on the run.

Her speaking style is pedestrian, when it is not actually grating. Those who dislike her tend to do so with a passion: her disapproval ratings started high and after months of campaigning are climbing still. It is a tribute to her tenacity and to the loyalty she commands in the party that her fate was not sealed weeks ago.

How much the way that a campaign is run tells you about a candidate’s fitness to be president is debatable – but it does tell you something, especially if the candidate with the misfiring strategy is running on a claim of management expertise.

On a related note, Hillary Clinton released an ad today that features Osama bin Laden. Desperate and despicable, I'd call it.

(h/t: astral66/TPM)

Pass Over This Column

Shorter Bill Kristol:

I liked John McCain's Passover card better than the ones from those two dirty smelly liberals. Therefore, he will be the best president ever.

Oh, and I like guns (because I'm not an elitist).

In defense of the son-of-an-Irving, there are no corrections attached to this week's column.

Yet.

A Boy Not on the Bus

Nice to see at least one member of the MSM isn't suffering from The Crush:

[McCain's economic] plan’s incoherent smorgasbord of items includes a cut from 35 percent to 25 percent in the corporate tax rate. For noncorporate taxpayers, Mr. McCain offers such thin gruel as a battle against federal pork (the notorious Alaskan “bridge to nowhere,” earmarked for $223 million in federal highway money, costs less than a day of the war in Iraq) and a temporary suspension of the federal gas tax (a saving of some $2.75 per 15-gallon tank). Now there’s a reason for voters to be bitter — assuming bloviators start publicizing and parsing Mr. McCain’s words as relentlessly as they do the Democrats’.

That may be a big assumption. At an Associated Press luncheon for newspaper editors in Washington last week, Mr. McCain was given a standing ovation. (The other candidate who appeared, Mr. Obama, was not.) Cindy McCain, whose tax returns remain under wraps, has not received remotely the same scrutiny as Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton, except for her plagiarized recipes. The most damning proof of the press’s tilt toward Mr. McCain, though, is the lack of clamor for his complete health records, especially in the wake of his baffling serial factual confusions about Iraq, his No. 1 issue.
-- Frank Rich

Where Do We Sign Up to Resume Our Colonial Status?

If this is how they're thinking over there, I, for one, would welcome back our Imperial overlords.

A CHARITY set up by an ardent Christian to fight slavery and the opium trade has identified a new social evil of the 21st century - religion.

A poll by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation uncovered a widespread belief that faith - not just in its extreme form - was intolerant, irrational and used to justify persecution.

Pollsters asked 3,500 people what they considered to be the worst blights on modern society, updating a list drawn up by Rowntree, a Quaker, 104 years ago.

The responses may well have dismayed him. The researchers found that the “dominant opinion” was that religion was a “social evil”.

Many participants said religion divided society, fuelled intolerance and spawned “irrational” educational and other policies.

(h/t: PZ)

Jeopardy Time

Here’s the list:

Washington Post — One (and it was less than 400 words)

New York Times — Zero

Los Angeles Times — Zero

Boston Globe — Zero

Chicago Tribune — Zero

USA Today — Zero

Wall Street Journal — Zero

Can you guess the question?

Give up?

Okay, here it is:

How many of the nation’s largest daily newspapers ran stand-alone news articles about the revelations concerning the White House, the “Principals,” and the torture discussions?

This is from a post on The Carpetbagger Report. Bonus for visiting: a video of the most detailed coverage of the scandal so far.

Yup. From Jon Stewart.

Temper? Fugit.

About that McCain tendency to ...

Does he get angry? Yes. But it's never been enough to blur his judgment. . . . If anything, his passion and occasional bursts of anger have made him more effective.

Oh, good. I mean, if you can't trust Joe Lieberman, who can you trust?

Weirdly, it takes the WaPo five pages to list all the people who disagree.

(h/t: Steve Benen)

(pic. source)

Bitter Bikers for Obama

Real Time's Real Reporter Jeremy Scahill reports from some small towns in Pennsylvania. Anecdotal to be sure, but intriguing nonetheless:

The above is the sixth of nine segments from the 18 April 2008 show, all of which may be viewed by following the links on this page. (If you're visiting this page more than a week after this post was published, you may have to click the "See all videos" link.)

Line of the Day: 2008-04-20

Roy on that cover:

That the people who dig so deep to find offense are the same ones who constantly bitch that "political correctness" limits free speech would qualify as a irony if irony still existed.

Had It With the Current Slate?

Forget Nader. The Exterminator is running for president. Here's his elevator pitch:

I combine the doddering old age of McCain, the inexperience of Obama, and the sheer obnoxious of Clinton.

Nearly true fact-like claim: he participated in last Wednesday's debate and has a plausible explanation for why that failed to generate notice. Read all about it.

The Military-Industrial-Media Complex

The New York Times has a long article up, headlined "Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand." It's a stellar piece of investigative journalism, based on a mountain of documentation not previously available, that details the relationships between the Pentagon, the White House, military contractors, lobbyists, and all those retired generals you always see on TV. The article describes the development and maintenance of an enormous message machine, and how it has been used in efforts such as the selling of the invasion of Iraq, the masking of the horrors of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, and promoting an ongoing, rosy outlook of The Surge^TM.

Most likely, you already have a sense that a lot of these talking brass hats have agendas and conflicts of interest that make their "analysis" more than a little suspect. The NYT's article, however, will not fail to astonish you with the extent of the organization, the amount of money involved, and the one-sidedness of the messages to be promulgated. Ditto the failure of media outlets to understand the ties that bind those whom they hire to opine on all matters military. Ditto the purging and banishing of those who strayed off message. It's well worth a look. If nothing else, it will give you an understanding of why so many liberals were initially snowed, and how people who get their information exclusively from Fox News are still so convinced of the wonderfulness of our excellent adventures in war.

Line of the Day II: 2008-04-19

About that Time magazine cover and the ensuing outrage:

It's one thing to rightly defend a truly monumental event in U.S. history from the whims of a cleverly ironic board of magazine editors, but it's another thing entirely to then up the irony yourself by dismissing the importance of an issue you don't know a damn thing about, nor do you care to investigate. No offense, but it makes it seem as if you fought in the Pacific for nothing more than the right to ignore anything you don't understand. Behold, the Fox News Channel's prime demographic.
-- Chez Pazienza

Line of the Day: 2008-04-19

(Actually, from two days ago.)

All you need to know about Wednesday's ABC debate, from Jon Stewart:

The first hour of last night's debate was a sixty-minute master class in questions that elevate out of context remarks and trivial, insipid miscues into subjects of national discourse … which is MY job.

[Added] This letter of protest is pretty good. The first comment, under the list of signatories, is great.

10-Second Geek Test

Does this make you laugh?

If yes, you are.

If no, see here and here for clarification.

Maybe There's Hope

Hard as this may be to believe, John Derbyshire has a good post up on The Corner. It's a succinct dismissal of the Creationist trope Darwin = Hitler, and it's as pointed as one could ask, especially considering where it's posted. Bonus points: Derbyshire is responding to an article published elsewhere on his own site!

(h/t: John Cole)

Your Moment of Awww

Swiped from Jinnet, a cat encounters a theremin. Worth watching till the end (only about 35 seconds), just to see the second cat.

(alt. video link)

That face, huh?

Your Moment of Mean

This is the artwork that accompanies Matt Taibbi's piece in Rolling Stone from a couple of months ago, "The New Nixon."

Taibbi's article was written back when Nevada was the key primary. (Remember that?) Given the events of the past month or two, it's remarkably prescient.

(h/t: look)

How Soon Till We Hear About "Traitorgate?"

(Updated below)

Robert Reich has endorsed Barack Obama for president. This is nice to hear, although not hugely surprising to some of us.

Reich, you may recall, was Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton from 1993-1997. You might also recall that another Clinton Cabinet official, Bill Richardson, has also recently endorsed Obama.

Reich begins his endorsement as follows:

The formal act of endorsing a candidate is generally (and properly) limited to editorial pages and elected officials whose constituents might be influenced by their choice. The rest of us shouldn't assume anyone cares. My avoidance of offering a formal endorsement until now has also been affected by the pull of old friendships and my reluctance as a teacher and commentator to be openly partisan. But my conscience won't let me be silent any longer.

I believe that Barack Obama should be elected President of the United States.

The full text of Reich's endorsement appears on his blog.

(h/t: Wonderment)

---

Update

2008-04-19 01:35

Via John Cole, here's Robert Reich speaking to a reporter for New York magazine shortly after he posted his endorsement:

"I saw the ads" -- the negative man-on-street commercials that the Clinton campaign put up in Pennsylvania in the wake of Obama's bitter/cling comments a week ago -- "and I was appalled, frankly. I thought it represented the nadir of mean-spirited, negative politics. And also of the politics of distraction, of gotcha politics. It's the worst of all worlds. We have three terrible traditions that we've developed in American campaigns. One is outright meanness and negativity. The second is taking out of context something your opponent said, maybe inartfully, and blowing it up into something your opponent doesn't possibly believe and doesn't possibly represent. And third is a kind of tradition of distraction, of getting off the big subject with sideshows that have nothing to do with what matters. And these three aspects of the old politics I've seen growing in Hillary's campaign. And I've come to the point, after seeing those ads, where I can't in good conscience not say out loud what I believe about who should be president. Those ads are nothing but Republicanism. They're lending legitimacy to a Republican message that's wrong to begin with, and they harken back to the past twenty years of demagoguery on guns and religion. It's old politics at its worst — and old Republican politics, not even old Democratic politics. It's just so deeply cynical."

Why I Still Run Windows 2000

Via Luis, who blogs from a different dimension, a few minutes of validation for Apple and penguin lovers, and few minutes of commiseration for those still absorbed by the Borg:

(alt. video link)

Bitter Testaments

Three good reads, courtesy of James Wolcott.

All I know is, I didn't renew my online crossword puzzle subscription this past January, either

This just in:

The New York Times Company, the parent of The New York Times, posted a $335,000 loss in the first quarter -- one of the worst periods the company and the newspaper industry have seen -- falling far short of both analysts' expectations and its $23.9 million profit in the quarter a year earlier.

Hmmm. What else happened one quarter ago? Oh, yeah.

Coincidence? I think not.

Just sayin', NYTpeeps: For the cost of one pink slip, you'd have $40 in cold hard cash coming from me the very next day.

And in addition to the boost in income, there are some cost savings to be had, I hear.

---

(pic. source)