Nun's on the Bus' Sister Simone Campbell had one of the great speeches last night, that included this memorable line:

Democratic Delegates No Vote Overruled, Platform Revised. Hannity goes in for the kill.

Sean Hannity is a two dimensional, living breathing, cartoon character. I rarely post anything he's ever done because he's so ridiculous. But this time...

After the Obama administration stepped in to revise the DNC's recently released platform, restoring the word "God" and recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Hannity gloated in the face of guest Jesse Jackson. The loud "no" vote from Democratic delegates to revise the platform was overruled, providing an opening for Hannity. Of course, Hannity failed to bring up a moment last week when the RNC disallowing Ron Paul delegates to make their vote.

Jackson made a great case for keeping the word "God" out, and Sean had no response.

Walker Clamps down on First Amendment Rights, puts a $200 Price Tag on Protests.

This stunning story greeted me this morning:

On September 5, 2012 the Wisconsin Capitol Police arrest 8 people and charge them with "Unlawful display of sign"

Is this even allowed under the state constitution, and how long will it be before someone finally challenges this outrageous restriction? Want to hold a sign up supporting the Red Cross, forget it.

Shit Scott Walker Is Doing To My State:"Two of the “signs” were actually t-shirts being distributed by the organization Muslims for Life that helped to promote the American Red Cross blood drive taking place on the first floor. Another sign said, “We ♥Blood Donors,” and yet another was a copy of Article I, Section 4, of the Wisconsin Constitution, which reads: “The right of the people peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, and to petition the government or any department thereof shall never be abridged.”

I don't know why a legal challenge wasn't attempted when the rules were first established. Now many of those arrested and fined $200 have to shell out their hard earned cash to the new Walker authority.

YouTube channel Arthurkr222 had this incredible video of the arrests:



Marquette University's law school posted this analysis:

One response to the criticism of the new DOA policy has been to compare the DOA policy to the rules governing demonstrations at the United States Capitol building. the U.S. Capitol building is not considered a public forum, while the Wisconsin State Capitol is. The expression of political speech receives the greatest protection under the First Amendment when it takes place in a public forum. The bottom line is that it makes a difference for the constitutional analysis of the new DOA policy that the Wisconsin State Capitol is a public forum. Might the legislators in Madison pass a bill declaring that the Wisconsin State Capitol is no longer a public forum? Not really, because once a location has become a public forum by tradition the government may not arbitrarily remove that status.

As I previously wrote, the new DOA policy is overbroad because it allows fees to be imposed on the indigent as a condition of protesting, it vests unbounded discretion in the Capitol police to determine whether to impose advance fees for security costs, and it requires permits from small groups of four or more protesters. These restrictions fail to meet the strict standards used to evaluate limitations on speech in a public forum. Even in a nonpublic forum like the U.S. Capitol, the federal courts have enjoined attempts to prevent small groups from engaging in non-disruptive protests without a permit. Rather than continue in its attempts to justify restrictions that indefensibly infringe upon the First Amendment rights of citizens, the DOA should withdraw its new policy and start from scratch.

One protester held up a blank piece of paper and was told to take it down. Sounds the beginnings of a worthwhile protest; show-up with blank paper or cardboard, in essence, not a sign and walk around the capital sight seeing.

Obama's lighter side....connects with Harold & Kumar

On the lighter side of the Democratic convention coverage...Kal Penn, of Harold and Kumar, will be hosting a livestream of Obama's speech tonight. Here's the video ad splashed all over Youtube:

Christian Science Monitor: Harold and Kumar Actor Kal Penn – stoner Kumar in the 'Harold & Kumar' movies – will host the livestreaming of Obama's speech on Thursday night. His appearance at the DNC on Tuesday was well-received. In the address he noted that besides making movies he has worked in the White House Office of Public Engagement under President Obama.

“My favorite job was having a boss who gave the order to take out bin Laden – and who’s cool with all of us getting gay-married. Thank you, invisible man in the chair for that.”

Bush Tax Cuts Inflate Deficit!!

If you've seen this chart, you got to see the new and improved easy to understand, even for a teabillies, version from Randi Rhodes:

Lyin' Ryan the talk of the Nation.

Here's Thom Hartmann dissection of Paul Ryan's endless stream of lies at the Republican National Convention. Thom's real point though is just as important; Ryan wouldn't have tried pulling his convention speech fast one on the American public, if the press had a history of doing its job.

Democrats boot God from Platform? Fox News and Paul Ryan must have a different Constitution.

I’ve put together 3 clips that demonstrate just how deceptive Fox News really is, and how Paul Ryan so easily falls in line with agenda.

First we see the great response from Dick Durbin, taking it to Bret Baier, for harping on the Democratic Party’s removal of “God” in their platform. Then surprise, we find out that faith was mentioned 11 times, and faith 9 times in the platform statement. 

And finally, Paul Ryan rolls with the deceptive flow on Fox and Friends when he lies again; claiming the word God is in “our founding document, our founding vision.” No, God is not in either. Except for the minor reference “by our creator,” that we’re all born equal, “God” is not named anywhere. It can’t be found and certainly wasn’t included in the “vision” of the country. 

Romney Flaunting Filthy Rich, Grotesquely Opulent lifestyle...get used to seeing it.

Remember how Republicans attacked John Kerry for his elitist penchant to sailboard?

Yet, Republicans are now okay with with Mitt Romney taking his jet ski out, or using a 150 foot yachting in the Cayman Islands during the convention to entertain the wealthy elite. Donors weren't embarrassed by their presence, but they also weren't about to give their name to ABC's Brian Ross.

I truly believe they want voters to get used to seeing the wealthy...oops, I mean entitled "job creators," planning and plotting our futures. They are the courageous leaders charged with making the tough decisions that most Americans, wouldn't think of making for themselves.

Brian Ross's report below should be breathtaking for most average Americans. To flaunt this kind of elitism at their own party's convention, when the press is out in force, would have been political suicide and unthinkable before Citizens United. Just as disappointing is the lack of coverage from MSNBC.

CNN Democratic Convention coverage, Reality Checking, Amateurish.

CNN's "Reality Check" was ridiculous. The idea is that "factually," when Obama was sworn in, unemployment was at 7.3 %, that would mean we're not better off now because unemployment is at 8.3 %. Heck, they even went back to election day, when unemployment was at 6.5 %...it must have been Obama's fault. An honest assessment is here, from Ezra Klein.

Think about that. The economy was in free fall, we were losing jobs fast, and then these CNN pundits chose to ignore the decline. After a grueling effort to prove the Democratic speakers wrong, they "factually" proved their empty, poorly made point. Oh, and their "reality check" included bashing Obama for the lousy jobs that were created. Yeah, that was his fault too.

Ari Fleischer calls Democratic Convention "hall of zealots."

If you missed my earlier blogs a few years ago, I made the claim that Ari Fleisher was the biggest asshole. Today...he still is.

Are we better Off? Ezra Klein explains.

Gov. Deval Patrick Frames the Democratic Agenda.

I joined Gov. Deval Patrick's speech a little late, but what I do have here, kills. It has all the fight and phrasing I would like to see more of.



San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro did a great job as well, and added this great line that says it all about the tea party loners bizarre rantings about "freedom" and small government.

Castro: "If we sever the threads that connect us, the only people who'll go far, are those who are already ahead. We all understand that freedom isn't free, what Romney and Ryan don't understand is neither is opportunity, we have to invest in it." 

And what can you say about the great speech from Michelle Obama? You'll notice that each speaker talked about President Obama, gay marriage, abortion rights and jobs. Pretty bold.

Thompson Supported "Obamacare!" Thompson runs from press for some reason.

It looks like Tommy Thompson may have some explaining to do. I say may because conservative low information voters don’t care much what their party does, just as long as they win.

Thompson as I recall did back the Affordable Care Act to some extent, because he knew something had to be done. That fading memory has been reaffirmed by a top White House adviser:

jsonline: A top White House adviser Tuesday put a new twist on an old charge - that Tommy Thompson supported Obamacare before he opposed it. Nancy-Ann DeParle, President Barack Obama's top adviser on health care, was present for a high-profile meeting two years ago on implementing the federal health care law that included Thompson. "He was, from what we could tell, working toward implementation," DeParle said. "I'm not going to say that he agreed with every single provision … But he was very helpful in implementation and we asked for his help and he said he would help us. DeParle said that the point of inviting Thompson to the meeting was that he was a supporter of the law - unlike many Republicans - Thompson at that time wanted to see it implemented rather than obstructed.

Thompson damage control went into action, but even conservative voters know Thompson a RINO. Oddly, Thompson was not available:

A Thompson spokesman immediately denied the assertion by DeParle, saying the longtime Wisconsin governor had never supported Obama's health law. Brian Nemoir said Thompson would not be available for an interview Tuesday and turned the conversation toward Thompson's Democratic opponent, U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin.

The conservative group Club for Growth also criticized Thompson's alleged support for the law during the GOP Senate primary Thompson won last month. The June 2010 meeting also isn't the only time Thompson worked with the White House on health care reform … On Oct. 4, 2009, the White House issued a joint statement by Thompson and Dick Gephardt, the former Democratic House majority leader from Missouri. That statement said that the health care bill then being considered by the Senate Finance Committee has "some issues that remain troublesome and unresolved," but that it was "another important step toward achieving the goal of health care reform this year."

Feingold Blasts Ryan in at Conventions.

Russ Feingold is in Charlotte, N.C. telling the truth about Paul Ryan.

jsonline: Former Sen. Russ Feingold told delegates: "You have a special responsibility as the Wisconsin delegation to set the record straight on Paul Ryan, and to show this idea of him being tough on spending is an absolute myth."

WISC Channel3000 had this report:

Feingold lambasted Ryan's record in the House and ripped his speech to the GOP convention last week, which Feingold said was full of "fabrications and deceptions."

Feingold's blistering comments are a bit more noteworthy because of his friendly relationship with Ryan over the years ... Feingold singled out Ryan's address which drew criticism in the media ... Feingold charged that Ryan "delivered the least honest of all the Republican convention speeches." In his speech, Ryan seemed to blame Obama for GM's failure to keep the plant running ... The Romney-Ryan campaign has argued that Obama "promised" to either keep the plant open or help it relaunch.

Feingold also blasted Ryan for his support of trade agreements that Feingold blames for the loss of industrial jobs. And Feingold accused Ryan of supporting policies under Bush - including wars and tax cuts - that fueled deficits. In an interview later, Feingold said of his relationship with Ryan, "I assume we'll continue to be polite and collegial to each other. You know our fathers had violent disagreements about politics . . . they were across the hall from each other . . . but the civility was clear and the civility will continue. But when somebody is on the national ticket and intentionally says things that you know (aren't) right, you got to call him on it."

Feingold argued that Ryan's credibility was hurt by the speech. "He had a really good reputation going into that night, and I think it was hurt significantly," said Feingold.

Feingold wasn't the only one leveling off on Ryan:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi attacked Ryan's plan to "voucherize" Medicare, calling it a "transparent trick to end Medicare," Politico reported.

Minnesota congressman Keith Ellison urged Wisconsin Democrats to help "get rid of Paul Ryan."
"What if he lost his House seat too? That'd be nice," said Ellison (Ryan is simultaneously on the ballot for Congress and vice president).

Lee Saunders, head of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, told delegates they can help stop Ryan. "You have seen Paul Ryan in action, and you will be our spokespersons all over the country to tell everyone who Paul Ryan really is." Saunders said.

Saunders showed a bit more passion, using the old "Hollywood" empty chair trick:

The Hill Poll as bad as it gets for Obama.

The unsettling thing about the presidential race is how close it's been. You can't hide the fact that a tight race favors the challenger. After nearly four years, voters apparently haven't noticed the slow but improving economy. What they have noticed is the insane but often repeated line by Republicans that we're going in the wrong direction, and most recently, the bizarre idea that we're not better off today than when were were 4 years ago, when we were in the midst of the Great Recession. 

Incredibly, the Republicans campaign to lie themselves into office is working beautifully. From someone who's followed the news closely, the voting public is about as removed from reality as I've ever seen it. After Citizens United, it's clear now who's represented by our government.

Simply put, an informed electorate is nothing more than a targeted group of political consumers who see the bright bold labels, but don't bother to read the ingredients. 

The following poll is depressing, but also just one of many. From The Hill, a Pulse Opinion Research Poll of 1,000 likely voters, +/- 3 %:

-52 % of likely voters say the nation is in “worse condition” now than in September 2008.

-54 % say Obama does not deserve reelection based solely on his job performance. Just 40 % of voters said Obama deserves reelection.

-58% of voters said they were “very or somewhat unsatisfied” with Obama’s economy.

-46 % of voters believe Romney will win the Nov. 6 election, compared to 43 percent who said they expect Obama to win.

-52 % of centrists said Obama does not deserve reelection based on his job performance, 53 percent feel the country is worse off.

-57 % of Men are more likely than women 51 % to believe Obama does not deserve reelection.

-78 % of Democrats believe the president deserves reelection but 1 in 5 do not believe he should get a second term.

-Aged 18-39, 51 % said the president does not deserve reelection.

-Seniors: 65 % of voters aged 65 and over said Obama shouldn’t get a second term.

-53 % of voters 40-64 years old feel the same.

-Voters earning $40,000 to $60,000 a year, 67 % said they were not satisfied with the president’s handling of the economy and 62 % said the country is in worse condition now than in 2008.

-58 % of people earning between $20,000 and $40,000 a year said the country is worse off now.

-66 percent are unhappy with his handling of the economy.

Better Off? Are Republicans Kidding?

Are we better off than when we were plunging into a Great Recession? Doh! How hard is this Question for Democrats?

We were losing jobs, the banks were defaulting, the mortgage market collapsed, and Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have the balls to ask, “are you better off today?”

Personally, it would seem like the absolutely worst possible time to use that popular phrase, since the global economy fell off a cliff in 2007 and 2008 due to Republican deregulation and self-regulation.

But low and behold, the Democrats are stumped on this one. Really? NO, REALLY?

If this is a harbinger of things to come, we’re about to see the party that brought us this pain, and now supposed future painful sacrifices, back into power.

At least one guy got it right:

CNN: Brad Woodhouse, communications director for the Democratic National Committee, said on CNN's "Early Start" on Monday that Americans were "absolutely" better off than four years ago, portraying the president as a pilot who saved a crashing plane. "The truth is that the American people know, we were literally a plane, the trajectory was towards the ground. He got the stick and pulled us up out of that decline," Woodhouse said.

Woodhouse pretty much said what VP Joe Biden said in Michigan:

Woodhouse's answer was far more definitive than those of some top Obama advisers on Sunday talk shows who stumbled over the question of how Americans feel four years after Obama's election.

Obama senior campaign adviser David Axelrod told Fox News, "We're in a better position than we were four years ago," he didn't directly answer the question if voters thought they were better off. White House senior adviser David Plouffe had a similar answer on ABC, saying, "I think everyone understands we were this close to a Great Depression. 

Democrats have to start answering the question immediately, with the first few words out of their mouths. But the Democratic Party is horrible at messaging, and one of the better spokespeople lately was Gov. Martin O’Malley, must have been drunk when he shot the party in the foot with this:

Republicans pounced when Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley's answered "no" to the question on CBS on Sunday.

I’m amazed. 

Did conservative voters read about, or even hear about, Paul Ryan's Lies? Media coverage was there...

What should be noted about Paul Ryan’s VP acceptance speech is the national dialogue about campaign lying and why Ryan thought he could get away with it. This was no small feat.

And yes, I'm weary of reading about about how Ryan lied. But for the record, here's my choice of analysis. 

From a guy who’s written a book entitled "Live from the Campaign Trail: The Greatest Presidential Campaign Speeches of the 20th Century and How They Shaped Modern America," I would give Michael Cohen bit more credit than your run of the mill political pundit. He’s even a fellow at the nonpartisan Century Foundation. Having said that, I thought his take on the Ryan's lies were worth reposting (edited for space).

NY Daily News: Yes, Paul Ryan lied, and yes, it matters!

His acceptance speech on Wednesday night was one of the most dishonest political speeches in recent U.S. political history.  While some like Ben Smith at BuzzFeed call Ryan’s flights of factual fancy "policy differences" with President Obama, this misunderstands what actually is a policy difference and what is a lie – and why Ryan’s incessant lying, including about marathon times, is actually pretty important.

1. Ryan claimed that President Obama’s stimulus measure was not only the "the largest one-time expenditure ever by our federal government," it was "a case of political patronage, corporate welfare, and cronyism at their worst. You, the working men and women of this country, were cut out of the deal." Now one can believe that the stimulus was big government run amok, as Ryan clearly does, but his characterization of the stimulus is simply false. The stimulus measure created 2.5 million jobs and, more important, cut taxes for 95% of Americans. It was also highly transparent and virtually fraud-free. It wasn’t the biggest one time expenditure – that would be World War II.

2. Ryan said that Obama’s "first order of economic business" was health-care reform. This is quite obviously not true. The derided stimulus bill passed within a few weeks of Obama taking office, health care a year later. Of course, Ryan’s claim that Obamacare "put the federal government in charge of health care" is an oft-repeated charge that is also a lie.

3. In addition, Ryan has also asserted that Obamacare raises taxes on "millions of small businesses." This is pants on fire untrue. In most cases, Obamacare provides small business with a tax cut.

4. On Medicare, Ryan’s assertion that the President took "$716 billion" and “funneled [it] out of Medicare” is belied by the fact that many of the cuts to Medicare went back into the program, for example filling the so-called "donut hole" in Medicare Part D.  It also ignores the fact that Ryan supported the exact same reductions before he conveniently changed his mind, though in his case the savings would have primarily funded tax cuts primarily benefiting the wealthy.

5. On the national debt, Ryan claimed that "by his own decisions," President Obama has added "$5 trillion in new debt." But of course this is only true if you believe history began the day Obama was inaugurated. Indeed, the vast majority of debt expansion over the past three-and-a-half years are from policies enacted under President Bush – things like the Bush tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, all of which were supported by Ryan. The debt has increased under Obama’s watch. This is unquestionably true. But it’s simply false to say this is primarily a result of Obama’s decisions.

6. In addition, Ryan said that Obama "created a bipartisan debt commission. They came back with an urgent report.  He thanked them, sent them on their way, and then did exactly nothing." This is a lie on a number of levels. First, the commission never issued an urgent report or made any recommendations to Obama – because the group’s final report was rejected by the balance of its commissioners, including Paul Ryan.  But it’s certainly one of the most extraordinary, even Orwellian, sins of omission one will ever see.

7. Lastly, there is Ryan’s argument that Obama "did nothing" to deal with the national debt. Here is the President’s proposal for long-term debt reduction sent to Congress in the fall of 2011 – and here’s the report’s crucial paragraph:

"I am sending to the Congress this detailed plan to pay for this jobs bill and realize more than $3 trillion in net deficit reduction over the next 10 years. Combined with the approximately  $1 trillion in savings from the first part of the Budget Control Act, this would generate more than  $4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade. This would bring the nation to the point where current spending is no longer adding to our debt and where our debt is no longer increasing as a share of our economy — an important milestone on the way to restoring fiscal discipline and moving us toward balance."

Now one may believe this is a lousy plan or that it won’t work or that it’s not serious. But to say that Obama has done nothing to deal with the debt issue is simply to deny reality.
There are also the inaccuracies like blaming the country’s debt downgrade on the President even though it was, according to Standard & Poor, largely the result of congressional gridlock and in particular a refusal to raise taxes (Republican), Or the implication in Ryan’s speech that Obama was responsible for a GM plant closing in Ryan’s home district even though the closure was set in motion before Obama even took office.

And this is just one speech! This isn’t even counting the Romney campaign’s more egregious lie – namely that President Obama’s granting of welfare waivers to states, a waiver requested by Republican governors, represents a "gutting" of welfare-work requirements. It’s pretty hard to imagine a situation in which that pattern of lying isn’t a relevant political issue.

We're a nation of American Suckers when it comes to Public School Bashing.

The rabid hatred of public schools by Republicans is spreading, thanks to the repetitive message and money spent on advertising “choice” and vilifying teachers. It’s called propaganda, and it works.

Take a look at this right wing article pushing the latest results of a Gallup opinion poll on public schools. The public’s perception, surprise, is just the opposite of the truth. We really are turning into the Bizarro World.

Among all types of U.S. educational institutions, Americans believe that public schools offer the worst quality of education, according to a new Gallup poll released Wednesday … the survey examined four types of U.S. schooling: charter schools, independent private schools, parochial or church-related schools, and homeschooling.

A mere 32 percent of respondents believe public schools provide a “good” education, while only 5 percent said they deliver an “excellent” education … combined 37 percent  was by far the lowest among all the types of schooling cited in Gallup’s survey.

CNSNews.com reported on the findings: Americans ranked independent private schools highest, with 31 percent saying they provide an excellent education and 47 percent saying they provide a good education — for a combined 78 percent who say they provide an excellent or good education.
Parochial and church-related schools ranked second, with 21 percent saying they provide an excellent education and 48 percent saying they provide a good education — for a combined 69 percent who say they provide an excellent or good education.

Charter schools came in third, with 17 percent saying they provide an excellent education and 43 percent saying they provide a good education — for a combined 60 percent positive rating.
Home schooling took fourth place, with 13 percent saying the educational practice offers an excellent education and 33 percent asserting that it delivers just a good education — for a combined 46 percent who gave home schooling a favorable rating.

Moreover, a sizable 19 percent of respondents believe public schools offer students a “poor” education, while only two percent said the same about independent private schools, and only five percent said that about charter schools and parochial or church-related schools; 14 percent of Americans believe homeschooling delivers students a poor education.
According to Gallup: “Americans are much more inclined to believe students in private, parochial, or charter schools receive a high-quality education than to say this about students in public schools and those who are home schooled. Americans in general are not highly satisfied with the state of public schooling in the United States, although that is probably not a commentary on their own child's school and schools in their local area because Americans have historically been quite satisfied with each of those.”

Quoted in the Washington Post’s blog “The Answer Sheet,” author Diane Ravitch says the Gallup poll is part of “an unprecedented, well-funded campaign to demonize public schools and their teachers.” 

Does repeating a lie over and over work? Guess so. The following adds to the already mountainous misinformation campaign of utter nonsense believed by the American public. A boost in achievement is a lie, and parents like to tell themselves they made the right decision despite child dissatisfaction, average scores and failing schools.

School vouchers are government-funded, making them hardly the perfect solution to reforming the education system. However, parental satisfaction, along with an exceptional boost in student achievement, of students in private schools — who previously attended public schools — shows why constitutionalists say that a government-monopolized education system has got to go.

Paul Ryan's Lies starting a National Discussion; is there any "Penalty for Falsehoods?"

This NY Times article is sounding the alarm over Paul Ryan's blatantly deceptive speech:

Every four years there are lies in campaigns, and at times a blurry line between acceptable political argument and outright sophistry. But recent events — from the misleading statements in convention speeches to television advertisements repeating widely debunked claims — have raised new questions about whether the political culture still holds any penalty for falsehood.

Since the whole Romney/Ryan campaign has been based solely on fictions and lies, we can confidently answer; there are no penalties...especially from Republican voters. 

But do both sides do it? The example given as proof, basically accepted the outrageous GOP spin that a fired worker blamed Romney for the death of his wife. He never suggested any such thing, and yet, it appears even the reporter here believes it.

An outside group supporting Mr. Obama ran an advertisement giving the unfair impression that Mr. Romney was responsible for the death of the wife of a steelworker who lost his job and his health insurance when Mr. Romney’s old company, Bain Capital, closed down the plant where he worked.

I’ve criticize fact check organizations for never considering known and long standing political agendas. But agendas are squishy things, and not really “facts.” So even though Paul Ryan’s voucherized Medicare plan was meant to fulfill the GOP’s long standing quest to eventually kill the program, the changes don’t wipe it out, so Ryan’s given a pass.

Brendan Nyhan, an assistant professor of government at Dartmouth College, said “The term ‘fact check’ can easily be devalued, as people throw it onto any sort of an opinion that they have.”

Ryan's speech though was so over the top, even the national media is starting to squirm. 

When Paul Ryan made a number of questionable or misleading claims in his speech, even before he stopped speaking, some of his claims were being questioned on Twitter. Soon fact-checkers were highlighting some of the misleading statements. 

Here's where right wing politics flexes it's propagandist muscle:

More partisan sites rushed to Mr. Ryan’s defense with posts finding fault with the first round of fact checks.

For a laugh, you have to read the comment at the Brookfield Patch by Brian Divelbess, who picks a few truthiness like details out of Ryan's lies and turns reality on its head (see picture). If these guys ever took complete control of government, real mistakes and bad policy will become a thing of the past with what they think is justified "down the rabbit hole" logic. 

Here's "Paul's Ryan's Lies" by David Mills, with my collection of Ryan graphics created by me and so many others:

But I found the following factoid unsettling: 

In a recent paper, called “When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions,” he and Jason Reifler, an assistant professor of political science at Georgia State University, found that corrective information in standard news articles — compared with separate fact-check pieces — was often ineffective at changing the minds of people predisposed to believe a misperception, and sometimes made the problem worse with what they termed a “backfire effect.” 

Or what is normally refered to as "liberal bias."

After African Police kill 34 Striking Platinum Mine Workers, 270 Fellow Minors now Being Charged with Murder.

It can’t happen here, right?

American’s already have a hard time imagining the horrors we read about in the newspapers from ever happening here. Outrageous worker abuses, even killings. But since 2008 and the tea party emergence, we’ve seen a Republican Party change overnight. In an uncompromising radicalized movement, just how long will it be before something unthinkable happens. Already we're seeing conservatives offer up austere changes that only affect the victims of the Great Recession; the poor, labor and seniors. Unthinkable once, sure, but not anymore. It's even been packaged as courageous acts of leadership, and not something repugnant.  

Try to wrap your minds around the events that took place in Africa against striking miners. Can it happen here? Did you ever think it could happen anywhere?  

NY Times: As the police opened fire on workers engaged in a wildcat strike at a platinum mine two weeks ago, killing 34 people, Mr. Ramaphosa, now a multimillionaire business tycoon and senior leader of the governing African National Congress, found himself in a very different position: on the board of the company the workers were striking against, the London-based Lonmin. Ramaphosa (was once) the firebrand leader of the National Union of Mineworkers.

That’s right, a former union leader sat by while this was allowed to happen. With American rage against unions here, and the widening gap of social inequality, we’re starting to mirror events like this happening around the world:

Now, as the shock of the killings reverberates through the nation, seething rage from the poor in one of the world’s most unequal societies, (they’re) sensing that the A.N.C. has created a wealthy black elite, including men like Mr. Ramaphosa, without changing the lives of ordinary people.

Any of this sound familiar? If you thought that was bad, get this:

Prosecutors have said they are charging 270 miners arrested after the melee, (and) not the police officers who fired the bullets, with the murder of their colleagues.

It appears the ruling authority is well protected. Will we even notice?