Onion: "Republicans Condemn Akin's Comments As Blemish On Party's Otherwise Spotless Women's Rights Record"

Hysterical from the Onion. It's short and good, no excerpt really possible, just go read it and smile. Read the rest of this post...

GOP "We Built It" convention receiving tens of millions in govt funds (socialists)

Not that the Republicans, and especially Mitt Romney, are beneath lying, but still - this ongoing "we built it" snafu is getting awfully embarrassing.

Every time Romney tries to highlight something supposedly built without government assistance, we find out that it was built with a LOT of government assistance.  There was Paul Ryan's family business.  Then Romney held a series of "we did build this" events around the country, only to find out that half of them didn't "build this" - they got government assistance, which was exactly the President's point.

And now we're finding out the same thing about the GOP's downright-socialist convention site in Tampa.

The Republican Party's convention site is creating an awkward reality at odds with the conservative media mythology that is at the center of the convention's theme.

In recent days, Fox News has praised Republicans for adopting "We Built It" as a theme for its upcoming convention. "We Built It" is based on the Fox-fueled distortion of President Obama's remarks tying the success of businesses to "this unbelievable American System" that includes government spending on infrastructure and education.

However, the selection of the Republican convention site actually proves President Obama's point about the role of government assistance. The construction of the Tampa Bay Times Forum was majority financed by the public; the arena is owned by local government; and the Republican convention has received tens of millions in government funds to help with costs and security.

Public financing and government property - Paul Ryan's idol Ayn Rand would roll over in her grave.

Who is John Galt?  Not these guys. Read the rest of this post...

Hurricane Isaac heads towards GOP convention: Because weather has a liberal bias

I'm not worried. The GOP doesn't believe in science, so how can something you don't believe in hurt you?

The Republicans can just pass a platform plank saying Isaac doesn't exist.

(Interestingly, a hurricane also caused problems for the GOP convention in 2008.  But everyone knows the weather has a liberal bias.) Read the rest of this post...

Meet the NRA's sexist, bigoted, vulgar, birther board member Todd Rathner

First Ted Nugent and now this guy. Does the NRA have any normal board members?

Anti-Muslim bigotry.

Birther.

Again, not exactly bipartisan, and a little extremist.

Parrotting GOP lies.

Hard not to take the Hussein thing as racist,
and the socialism accusation is typical GOP extremism.

Sexist, about Obama campaign spokeswoman.

Vulgar, about Senator Harry Reid.

Not exactly bipartisan.

Read the rest of this post...

CNN Fact Check on Romney's welfare ad: "We rate it false"

CNN's COSTELLO: The Romney campaign rolling out yet another commercial blasting President Obama for stripping the work requirement out of welfare. Republicans are expected to attack the President on that point at their convention, too, but is it true? Our fact checker Tom Foreman has been sifting through the evidence.

CLINTON: Join me as I sign the welfare reform bill.

CNN's FOREMAN: Welfare reform was a big bipartisan success story in the mid-1990s. Signed by Bill Clinton, it fulfilled is promises by the Democratic President and the Republican Congress to push welfare recipients to work in exchange for their benefits - to end welfare as we know it. So the idea of another Democratic President, Barack Obama, taking the work requirement off of the table is political dynamite. Right?

AD: On July 12th, President Obama quietly ended the work requirement gutting welfare reform. One of the most respected newspapers in america called it nuts.

CNN's FOREMAN: The problem is, President Obama calls this claim nuts.

OBAMA: Every single person here who's looked at it says it's patently false.

CNN's FOREMAN: So where did this come from, this notion of a giant change in welfare rules? Oddly enough, it did not originate here in Washington, but rather out in the country. Several states, including some with Republican governors asked the federal government for more flexibility in how they hand out welfare dollars. Specifically, they want to spend less time on federal paperwork and more time experimenting with what they hope will be better ways of getting people connected to jobs. So the administration has granted waivers from some of the existing rules.

OBAMA: Giving them, those states some flexibility in how they manage their welfare rolls as long as it produced 20 percent increases in the number of people who are getting work.

CNN's FOREMAN: That might in a small way change precisely how work is calculated, but the essential goal of pushing welfare recipients to work remains in place. That's pretty much it. This is clearly not an effort by the President to kill off the welfare work requirements. That's why even some Republicans backed away. Governor Romney's claim doesn't work. And we rate it false. Tom Foreman, CNN, Washington.

Read the rest of this post...

Why are all the GOP celebrities such nuts?

Hank Williams, who previously compared President Obama to Hitler, now is telling crowds at his concerts that the President is a Muslim who hates the US.  And the crowds roar with delight.

Someone does appear to hate the US, but it's not the President.  (He also hates the truth, but that's typical of the fringe now running the Republican party.  It's the same problem the GOP hate groups have - a dedication to lying as tactic. Though sometimes I wonder if nuts like Williams, the NRA's Ted Nugent, the FRC's Perkins, don't actually believe the filth they spread?

It's one problem for the GOP if they're simply liars.  It's an entire other problem for the GOP if all of their cultural and intellectual leaders - read: Limbaugh - actually believe the garbage they spew.  Because in that case, they're not just dishonest, they're fanatics.  And believers - especially crazy ones - are far more dangerous (to us and the GOP) than liars any day.

At some point the Republican party needs to worry less about "taking back America" and more about taking back its own party. Read the rest of this post...

Rachel Maddow on "legitimate rape"—What Todd Akin's statement says about GOP orthodoxy

This is The Rachel Maddow Show at its best.

Look beyond the fact that MSNBC is a one-eyed giant that finds only Republican fault. There is Republican fault to find, and Maddow has found a doozy. The analysis below is brilliant.

Consider the seed. The ostensible seed is Missouri [corrected] GOP Senate candidate Todd Akin's remarkable statement (my emphasis):

First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

But this is not about that statement; it's about what that statement means. This segment has a different seed and a different bottom line.

Her bottom line determines her structure. She therefore starts in 1980 with the Leon Holmes' own remarkable statement, then steps to Stephen Freind in 1988, to Henry Aldridge (what a name) in 1995, and then to Fay ("God's Little Shield") Boozman in 1998.

The seed isn't the offense to women in Todd Akin's statement, it's modern right-wing orthodoxy. You can't understand "legitimate rape" and its implications without that backward look.

Watch; and as you do, try to anticipate her bottom line. (Click here to open large in a new tab.)



Do you see it now? A nice catch by Maddow and an unexpected, brilliant bottom line for the Todd Akin news event. It's not about that comment; it's about what that comment means.

Akin's comment means that modern right-wing voters and the low-end politicians (like Akin) who carry water for the smarter, more powerful Bigs (do you really think Rove believes this crap?) — those people think exactly like the witch-hunters of the 17th century.

In the 1600s, judges determined if a witch was guilty by subjecting her to "trial by drowning" (my phrase; actually "ordeal by cold water"). Basically, you tie the "witch" up and throw her in the river.

If she floats, she isn't a witch. If she drowns, she is a witch and needed drowning anyway. The proof is also the punishment. How convenient. [See also Update below.]

In this century, they're testing for modern witches who engage in "illegitimate" rape — witches who secretly wanted it.

Call it "trial by baby" — if the "witch" wasn't asking for it, she can't have gotten pregnant. As Maddow says, "by definition" if she got pregnant, she "cooperated" and lost the protection of "God's Little Shield".

And just like in 1600s (where these people apparently still live), the "proof" is also the punishment. If you didn't have "God's Little Shield" you got what you deserved — "God's Little Lemonade."

How convenient.

Right-wing orthodoxy: These people, enablers of the right-wing Bigs, are truly crazy. And non-crazy Bigs like Rove are using them to the hilt. Like with the climate, folks, this trajectory too has an end-point.

Update: I'm reminded that some versions of "ordeal by cold water" reversed the guilty indicator (see here and also here). True enough; still, I like my metaphor and they did often test-drown the "guilty." (Thanks always to commenters for corrections and factual adjustments.)

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Pat Robertson rushes to Akin's defense

So now we have Robertson. Bryan Fischer of the officially-designated hate group American Family Association, and Tony Perkins of the officially-designated hate group Family Research Council.  That pretty much answers any remaining questions about whether Akin is a bit too extreme.

Read the rest of this post...

RBS the latest bank under investigation for business with Iran

Doing deals with Iran is nothing compared to the trillions they blew away during the peak of the banking crisis or even the Libor ripoff. That said, this is an industry that thumbs its nose at the law because it is the law. The banking industry can rest comfortably knowing that it's easy enough to write a few checks to pay a few fines and nobody will bother them tomorrow. The Guardian:

US authorities are investigating Royal Bank of Scotland for possible violations of sanctions with Iran, the Financial Times reports.

The Federal Reserve and department of justice are conducting the investigation, the paper said, citing several people close to the situation. The investigation comes after the British bank volunteered information to US and UK regulators 18 months ago, the Financial Times said.

Ed Canaday, a spokesman for RBS, declined comment.

But in its quarterly report filed on 8 August, RBS said it had "initiated discussions with UK and US authorities to discuss its historical compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including US economic sanctions regulations". The bank said it could not predict the outcome of those discussions.

Outside of maybe the "defense industry" no other industry can so often and so blatantly flout the law and get away with a light tap on the wrist. In the case of the much larger banking crisis, they didn't even have to pay back the bogus bonus money they had received for years. Read the rest of this post...