JustOneMinute

Oh, For Heaven's Sake

TAPPED continues to amuse and confuse with this post:

HOW MANY EVANGELICALS, EXACTLY? Blogger Jerry Bowles fact-checks Nicholas Kristof's op-ed on (yawn) how the mainstream media has an "institutional bias" against evangelicals. Kristof inadvertantly illustrates the actual problem: most reporters don't know much about religion, period, especially the difference between an evangelical and a non-evangelical.

Now, the Kristof comment in question is his assertion that "nearly all of us in the news business are completely out of touch with a group that includes 46 percent of Americans.

That's the proportion who described themselves in a Gallup poll in December as evangelical or born-again Christians.

OK, let me declare my bias up front: I thought the 46% figure seemed high, and I love catching Kristof in error, but instead of double-checking this, I moved on. However, it is now a double-play - either Kristof or TAPPED is wrong, so I will have fun either way. And in an article about media ignorance of religion, it would be great if Kristof added together several categories of poll respondents and blithely (but inaccurately) called them "evangelicals". So, high hopes! And its off to the TAPPED sanctified de-bunking:

Just as the Bush-Ashcroft-Falwell God Squad is striving mightily to batter down the door between church and state and invade the bedrooms and hard drives of law-abiding Americans, along comes New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof claiming the mainstream media has an "institutional bias" against the "46 percent of Americans" who are evangelical or born-again Christians.

Hmm, this is analysis seems to have the slightest of political slants.

...The part about Bush being a true believer is certainly true but do nearly half of Americans really share the Holly Rolling, tongue-speaking, washed-in-the-blood-of-the-lamb, every-word-of-the-Bible-is-the-literal-truth, everybody?s-going-to-burn-in-hell-except-us faith of those simple folks who now occupy the White House?

Whoa, fella! That may be your understanding of "evangelical" or "born-again", but unless the Gallup poll defined it similarly, we may have a huge gap between your perception and the public self-perception.

...Since the Census doesn?t ask about religion, the most current and definitive information available on church affiliation is the National Council of Churches (NCC) annual Yearbook. In 2001, the latest year for which figures are available, the NCC found more than 159 million adherents in some 216 different Christian denominations. In other words, about 55% of America?s 281 million people are affiliated with one Christian church or another.

That leaves 45% of Americans who are either non-Christians or not active, church-going Christians. (Are you taking notes, Mr. Kristof?)

The 10 largest churches, in order, are:

? Roman Catholic: 65.2 million
? Southern Baptist Convention: 16 million
? United Methodist: 8.3 million
? Church of God in Christ: 5.5 million
? Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: 5.3 million
? Lutheran Church in America: 5.1 million
? National Baptist Convention USA: 5 million
? National Baptist Convention of America: 3.5 million
? Presbyterian (USA): 3.5 million
? Assemblies of God: 2.6 million

So if we eliminate as Bush-Ashcroft-Falwell born-again soulmates Catholics, Mormons, Presbyterians, Lutherans (they have a different conception of born-again) and most Methodists (other than our President and a relative handful of ?hardshell? Methodists) we can easily identify 60% of America?s Christians as non-evangelical. Throw in the number of ?moderate? Baptists and the figure comes closer to 70-75%.

Oh, I get the drift. Rather than troubling ourselves to ask people whether they are "born-again", we will infer their beliefs from Census data. Catholics, for example, are not evangelicals. Nor, I suppose, are "Jews for Jesus". Well, this technique should save the Gallup organization a great deal of time in the future. In fact, since party affiliation is a matter of record for those reigistered to vote, we can dispense with a lot of silly political polls as well.

However, we have the subtlest of straws in the wind here. Maybe "born-again" and "evangelical" should not be lumped together interchangeably, as both Kristof and the Gallup organization are doing? If that is the point being made, don't be shy! However, this debunking left me somewhat unsatisified, so I went back to my simple-minded scheme of attempting to locate the Gallup poll to which Kristof referred. Hey, a hit and a miss. Here is a Gallup press release describing the aggregation of five polls taken over the last two years. Payoff pitch:

About 8 in 10 Americans (79%) identify with the Christian faith in one way or the other, and about half of all Americans (47%) are Protestants. Forty-one percent of Americans say they are "born again," which is a New Testament term that evangelical or fundamentalist Protestants routinely use to signify a significant conversion experience.

Hmm, 41% over five polls. If Kristof is wrong, it may not be by much.

The December 2002 poll seems to be available only to deep-pocketed or truly committed subscribers. However, a Google search indicates that Google can see it, even if I cannot. This search - "site:gallup.com born again December 2002" produces two responses. The first response is:

... all Americans (46%) say they describe themselves as "born-again or evangelical ... interviews
with 1,009 national adults, aged 18+, conducted December 9-10, 2002. ...

However, both the link and the cached linked take me to a premium page.

So, Kristof sems to be spot on in his ability to read a Gallup poll. Extraordinary!

And what is happening at TAPPED? They have happily endorsed a piece which ends thusly:

But, the bottom line it this: Kristof is full of shit when he says evangelicals have become ?mainstream? and that the press owes them some sort of respect for their narrow-minded, anti-scientific, sanctimonious holier-than-the-rest-of-the-world bigotry....

Does TAPPED do any independent fact-checking at all? This Gallup poll exists! Maybe the Gallup organization is wrong, maybe the question needs to be re-worked to accomodate the prejudices of the TAPPED reviewer, maybe TAPPED is trying to reinforce the notion of a media blind-spot with respect to religion. But Kristof survives this fact-checking intact.

Now, given the tone of the author, one infers an anti-Bush tilt. But Democrats, fear not! According to the Gallup information, evangelicals are well represented in your party as well - 41% of self-described evangelicals are Repubs and 31% are Dems. No prizes for guessing the racial breakdown.

So, TAPPED - try to get out in the world, or even in your own party, before you endorse this bigoted nonsense. Or even get a subscription to Google.

UPDATE: I will offer TAPPED a bit of comfort from the Left, and assure them that at least some evangelicals are acceptable. Charles Murtaugh and Atrios have posted on this. Mr. Murtaugh,at least, is able to distinguish between "evangelists" and "fundamentalists", unlike TAPPED. And we will give the last word to the Rev. Al Sharpton: "The Christian Right has to meet the right Christians."

UPDATE 2: This is far from over! If I ever get fully back from the weekend, I hope to have more, but let's just quickly note that Jimmy Carter describes himself as a "born again" Christian. He also told reporters he had seen a UFO, so go figure. BTW, has anyone asked him about Elvis?

Veto, Schmeto - You're Either

Veto, Schmeto - You're Either On The Bus Or Off The Bus

Bold Predictions - the US will demand a vote on the US resolution on Iraq next week. It will not be vetoed. If it is, the US will ignore the veto. And, a headline flickered by saying Blair would ignore it too, so I am looking less bold, and more like CW each moment. In fact, I see that "Until now, Blair has said he reserved the right to go to war without U.N. authorization in case a singular "unreasonable veto" was wielded, so this is yesterday's news.

Reasons: the US will demand a vote because it will line up nine votes for passage (the magic 2/3). The US, Britain, Spain, and Bulgaria are committed and enough of the smaller countries will decide that it is better to be on the bus than off the bus. If the US is going to do this anyway, why annoy us by standing in our way?

Now, will there be a veto by France, Russia, or China? No. No one wants to be a hero and cast the sole veto. However, the voting procedure in the Security Council seems to be by show of placards unless someone requests a roll call vote, in which case votes are cast in (English) alphabetical order.

France and Russia may have mutually promised to veto, but where is the trust? The Prisoners Dilemma arises as, by roll call, France votes first. Veto, and Russia can ingratiate itself with the US by abstaining, knowing that the measure has failed. But if France does not veto, Russia will decline to veto alone. So, both abstain.

And we don't care. Why not? Because Americans understand democracy, "get" majority rule, don't like the French, and distrust veto power unless it is ours. If Bush appears on national television and says that the US sponsored resolution received two thirds of the Security Council votes but failed because of sneaky French and puzzling Russian objections, We the People will be placated. Fine, the anti-war folks won't be, but that would be true anyway. Bush has said he would lead a "coalition of the willing" many times, but now the NY Times adds this:

A nine-vote majority, even with vetoes by France or Russia, American officials believe, might still carry some moral authority in a trembling world.

It was said back in the Haight-Asbury days by one of Ken Kesey's Merry Pranksters, but the wisdom is timeless and true for UN delegates today:

"It's great to be part of the greatest jack-off in history".

Who Is Marcy Kaptur? Today,

Who Is Marcy Kaptur?

Today, she is famous for the following quote:

"One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown."

Well, we all recognize red meat when we see it, so we know that talk radio will bury her for this. [Mini-Update: Reactions from Reynolds, Volokh...]

The story above provides a link to Ms. Kaptur's web site. And here is the original interview in the must-read Toledo-Blade.

Well, from her attempt last fall to run for Minority Leader as the senior Democratic woman in the House, we infer that she is not an insignificant back-bencher. In our insatiable quest for ghastly background info, we note her proud opposition to NAFTA, ten years later.

She mentions the Green Mountain Boys in her interview. I am reasonably certain they did not crash airplanes into London skyscrapers, but perhaps they engaged in acts that would today be considered terrorism. Hmm:

Green Mountain Boys, popular name of armed bands formed (c.1770) under the auspices of Ethan Allen in the Green Mountains of what is today Vermont. Their purpose was to prevent the New Hampshire Grants, as Vermont was then known, from becoming part of New York, to which it had been awarded by the British. Land speculators, such as Allen and his brothers, and settlers banded together in armed groups to defend their lands. Their methods were threat, intimidation, and actual violence against the New Yorkers, and they managed to keep the region free from New York control, establishing (1777) instead a separate government that ultimately achieved (1791) statehood for Vermont.

And more about their Revolutionary War exploits.

Well, she may be on to something here, with the "Green Mountain Terrorists". However, the moral equivalence watch is still VERY concerned, since we worry about objectives as well as methods. But since my kids are off something, namely school (snow day!), I will have to pursue this later.

UPDATE: Ahh, the "Evil Excerpter" is working again! Here is a lovely out of context sound-bite from non-patriot Marcy Kaptur: We have a plutocracy. We don’t have a republic."

Oh, whatever. Here is a more complete excerpt, just to spoil my fun:

Miss Kaptur has campaigned for candidates in Iowa and given speeches in New Hampshire, but she did not disclose any 2004 presidential aspirations.

She said she wants to be "a burr under the saddle" to bring down the high cost of running for office. "[I want] to make it possible for ordinary citizens who have distinguished themselves to run for president," she said. "The system we have today doesn’t allow it. We have a plutocracy. We don’t have a republic.

"People better pay attention to how much it’s costing - $200 million to run for president, $10 million to run for governor or senator in Ohio," the congresswoman said.

Whatever. But it is sooo fun to bash Democrats. [You may have to scroll down a bit, sorry. And this source attributes it to a staffer.]

OK, this next bit is not quite "No Blood for Oil", and the source is what it is, but here we go:

Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) accused President Bush of treason on the Fox News Hannity and Colmes show, saying,

Bush wants war in Iraq to "pump up his corporate interest" and that the Bush family "would love to have their war to enhance their oil profits".

That may not be an accusation of treason, but still, I am not sure this is an example of responsible leadership.

Next is from 1997, we presume she means Bush I, and we wonder if this has a factual basis, or simply falls in the category of random character assasination:

I think for the country, there’s no more important priority than campaign-finance reform, even though I think it’s at 4 percent in the polls... [President] Clinton got in trouble because of the acceptance of money from foreign interests like the Chinese, and the Lincoln Bedroom scandal—which, by the way, I’m sure George Bush did too, absolutely.

Next up, a Warblogger Feast - her statement on the House resolution last October authorizing the use of force against Iraq. L et me summarize - it's all about Palestine, oil, and the corrupt oil companies associated with Bush and Cheney.

Probable Rate Cut In Europe

Probable Rate Cut In Europe

Economists, with or without a PhD, will cheer.

UPDATE: Fine, a Bronx cheer. Only a quarter point?!?

I Would Like Her To

I Would Like Her To Be My Guest At The Kentucky Derby

The inscrutable Diane E. said that "I believe that Saddam will be history on March 18, 2003", as we noted earlier.

Now, we have this story from the "Daily Torygraph":

BRITISH troops had been told an invasion of Iraq would begin on March 17, with a huge bombing campaign being launched four days earlier, the Daily Express in London has reported.

The tabloid quoted a senior government source, who it reported had direct access to British military planning in Kuwait, as saying that "everything is being geared up towards a ground invasion beginning on Monday week".

So far, the prediction looks good. How did she do that?

Poor Al And The Evil

Poor Al And The Evil Media

Bob Somerby of the Endless Howler continues his series on the mistreatment of Al Gore by the major media in the 2000 race.

This series could have some potential value as a cautionary tale for Kerry supporters, since Big John may not have the best relationship with the Washington press corps.

However, it serves instead only as a delightful stroll down memory lane for unreconstructed Gore-bashers.

The problem - Al and his staff disappear from the story. Al is a passive victim. Somerby chronicles outrageous press behavior with no attempt to describe Gore's reaction, or non-reaction. Were Al and his team oblivious, or simply incompetent? And doesn't either choice speak to his Presidential qualifications?

There is a hidden tidbit here - liberal media bias lives! Or at least, the press treatment of Al does not disprove its existence, since, according to Somerby, the press originally turned viciously on Al in favor of liberal Bill Bradley.

We eagerly await future installments. Eventually, we expect Mr. Somerby to regale us with tales about how the three Al Gores that we all saw in the three debates with Bush were also the invention of an evil media.

The French Foreign Minister Does

The French Foreign Minister Does NOT Read Volokh!

I admit I am less than astonished. However, both Matthew Hoy and Eric the Red Menace pick up this comment from Mr. de Villepin: "I think you cannot remake history. You can take lessons.”

C'mon, Monsieur, the future is now! But more importantly, here is one of E Volokh's reader's on the subject of history:

...Kirk Parker, responding to "If you can't predict the future, what can you predict?" recalls the old Soviet line: "Only the future is certain; the past keeps changing." Indeed.

How would one say that en francaise?

A Summary of the Ken

A Summary of the Ken Pollack Case For Invading Iraq

Provided by Eric T. Miller, whose bio tells us that "Eric Miller, former Chief Investment Officer at Donaldson, Lufkin, & Jenrette, has agreed to join bankstocks.com as a Senior Contributor.

The article summarizes the Iraqi situation since the Gulf War, including the glorious history of UN inspections. Also, there are some tidbits for those waiting for the "silver bullet":

The CIA had been given the green light in 1997 to pursue coup attempts, but at least six attempts didn’t come close to succeeding.

and

Some politicians have advocated an attempted coup, but we’re tried that a number of times, never successfully. Pollack isn’t impressed with the quality of leadership among the opposition groups. Hussein’s security wall seems almost impenetrable, especially after he eliminated any potential adversary. George Tenet, the CIA director, has said that the chances of success of covert action are no better than 20%.

Gift-Wrapped For TAPPED We have

Gift-Wrapped For TAPPED

We have been following the TAPPED discussion on "what is an economist", and one things seems clear - if you laid one thousand TAPPED writers end to end, they wouldn't reach a sensible conclusion.

TAPPED reprises and restates their argument, and we are puzzled by their big finish:

"So: Perhaps the 250 people who signed the White House letter are right, and the 450 who signed the opposing letter are wrong. But then why play the game at all? If Lawrence Kudlow is such a damn good economic forecaster, why not put that on the letter? Our point is, if you're going to play the game, as the White House clearly wanted to do -- "Hey, we have economists on our team, too!" -- you have to at least be consistent. "

Now, in their original post, TAPPED said this:

Now, one needn't be a credentialed economist to have an opinion on the Bush budget. But traditionally, you don't get to call yourself an economist without that sheepskin. If the White House wants to play a credentialing game to even out the P.R. battle...

Here we have two references to some credentialing "game" being played by the White House, so evidently TAPPED considers it to be a point worth repeating. But just what is their point? Did the White House question the credentials of some of the 450 economists who signed the letter opposing the Bush tax cut? Did the Administration attempt to disqualify some of the 450 signatories to the opposing statement? Does the Economic Policy Institute, sponsor of this letter, define an economist? Some of their signatories are not associated with academic positions - did the White House question their credentials? Has TAPPED attempted to verify them?

My strong impression is that the EPI did not require their signatories to have a PhD in Economics. Donald Vial appears as a signatory from California. Mr. Vial has an admirable resume, but no PhD. Since one example makes the point, I have given up, but let's note that "California" appears near the top of the list, and my search was far from exhaustive. (I am still scratching my head over "Marshall Pomer of California, BTW)

And I am sure you want to know a bit about the Economic Policy Institute, whose founders include Robert Kuttner of TAP.

TAPPED points out that, although they have provided a definition of "economist", Mr. Luskin has not. Neither, apparently, has the White House, nor, as noted, the EPI. However, the WaPo described the letter supporting the Bush plan as "a letter from more than 200 academic, think-tank and corporate economists", which seems to be accurate.

In this complicated world, perhaps being an economist is like pornography - I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

So, points for TAPPED to ponder - by their definition, neither John Maynard Keynes, Alan Greenspan, nor Robert Rubin would have been qualified to sign either letter - they are, respectively (and respectfully) a mathematician, an "all but thesis" grad, and a smart guy.

Next point - the TAPPED criteria were not articulated or employed by either the EPI or the White House.

More for TAPPED: A list of speakers at the 2002 National Association of Business Economists meeting. Roughly half of the folks have a PhD in economics. I see some with a PhD, but they are coy about the underlying subject. And I see some with different credentials. Not economists? I am sure TAPPED would deplore sexism, so let's check this resume:

Sheila Smith
Senior Economist, Office of the Actuary
Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services

Sheila Smith is a Senior Economist with the Office of the Actuary at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). She holds primary responsibility for model development for CMS' econometric model of the health sector (the NHE Projections Model) , and plays a key role in the forecasting process associated with CMS annual ten-year projections of national health expenditures (NHE)....

Ms. Smith holds a B.A. in economics from Wellesley College, and an M.A. in economics from the University of Virginia.

And, last point (I promise!): in an earlier post I linked to the the American Economic Association, and checked their job openings, on a page subtitled "Job Openings for Economists". Well, they don't define "economist" either, but I found numerous examples of openings for non-PhD economists.

Give it up, TAPPED.

Mickey Has A Question We

Mickey Has A Question

We have an answer. From Mickey:

Why did we find out about the capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed almost immediately after the event? Wouldn't it have been better to keep the arrest secret while the U.S. and its allies rolled up those al Qaeda operatives whose whereabouts could be traced through Mohammeds' cell phone and computer, etc.? Why send out a worldwide alert, through CNN, to his co-conspirators, telling them it was time to scatter? Did the need for good publicity trump sound anti-terror techniques?

Now, my first reaction upon hearing the news of this arrest on Saturday night was to assume that the Administration was providing the Sunday talking heads a bit of good news to offset the debacle in Turkey. I have detected a whiff of news management before.

However, in my part-time role as apologist for the Bush Administration, let me offer some ideas. First, this story wonders whether KSH really was just arrested over the weekend.

Secondly, we recently had the increase in terrorist alert status, and reports that a major attack was imminent. Presuming for a moment that this is being taken seriously inside the Administration, then announcing the arrest of KSH may be an effective and immediate way of disrupting the terrorist cells, thereby preventing an immediate attack. This is a tricky trade-off, because a "stealth arrest" may have allowed the arrest of more al-Qaeda, as Mickey notes.