Female Reporter Speaks Of "Legitimate Rape" For Long Island Newsday In 2009

But for some reason Rep. Akin made a mistake using the words "legitimate" and "rape" together.

The story is here by Ann Givens:

On the one hand, they will want to discourage people from lying to law enforcement, and show that there will be consequences for doing so, experts said. On the other, they don't want to discourage legitimate rape victims from coming forward, or discourage people who lied at first from telling the truth later on, experts said.

Here's the screenshot:

Orlando Sentinel Quotes Orange County Official Saying "Legitimate Rape" In 2010

Rep. Todd Akin can't use the words together, but she can?

The story is here:

"There is potential that the recent cases involving false allegations of sexual violence will negatively influence legitimate rape victims from coming forward to receive recovery services, report the crime to law enforcement and ultimately hold their offenders accountable," she says.

Here's the screenshot:

George Neumayr: Romney And His Republicans Are Not Authentic Conservatives

So says George Neumayr for The American Spectator, here, and so do I:

An authentically conservative party would find Romney's unprincipled position far more chilling than Akin's gaffe. If unborn children gain or lose their right to life depending upon the circumstances of their conception, then the party has already conceded that that right doesn't exist. Ronald Reagan understood the implications of that concession and never wavered in his defense of the right to life of all unborn children, not just some of them. ... For all the talk about "pragmatism" and "diplomacy" this week from country club Republicans, they didn't display any towards a candidate who won a primary fair and square.

How One Conservative Voted Against Materialism And The Imperial Presidency In 1976

From Bill Kauffman, here:

[T]he Port Huron Statement, and SDS, emphasized the core principle of decentralization, of breaking overly large institutions and even cities down to a more human scale, “based on the vision of man as master of his machines and his society.”

“We oppose the depersonalization that reduces human beings to the status of things,” declared the authors. The line might have been written by another Michigan lad, Russell Kirk of Mecosta. Kirk was no New Leftist, though he did later befriend—and in 1976 voted for—Eugene McCarthy, the peace candidate of the 1968 Democratic primaries, the distributist-inclined Catholic intellectual who befuddled his conventional liberal supporters with talk of a salutary “depersonalizing” of the presidency, of reducing that office to its constitutional dimensions, shorn of the accreted cult of personality.

Mitt Romney: Today's Symbol Of The Fatal Impoverishment Of Conservatism

"[T]he conservative movement is enfeebled, intellectually and in backing, at the very hour of its popular ascendancy. (By the way, America’s bigger men of business, with very few exceptions, never have been of any help to really conservative causes; if they think of politics at all, it is much as they think of professional sports teams: 'Winning is the name of the game.') This may become a fatal impoverishment. ... 

I am not implying that conservative folk should set to forming a conservative ideology; for conservatism is the negation of ideology. The conservative public man turns to constitution, custom, convention, ancient consensus, prescription, precedent, as guides—not to the narrow and fanatical abstractions of ideology. I am saying, rather, that unless we show the rising generation what deserves to be conserved, and how to go about the work of preservation with intelligence and imagination—why, the present wave of conservative opinion will cast us on a stern and rockbound coast, perhaps with a savage behind every tree. Conservative leaders ought to declare, with Demosthenes, 'Citizens, I beg of you to think!' ...

So it is that thinking folk of conservative views ought to reject the embraces of the following categories of political zealots:

Those who urge us to sell the National Parks to private developers.

Those who believe that by starving South Africans we can dish Jesse Jackson and win over the black vote en masse.

Those who would woo the declining feminists by abolishing academic freedom through a new piece of 'Civil Rights' legislation.

Those who instruct us that 'the test of the market' is the whole of political economy and of morals.

Those who fancy that foreign policy can be conducted with religious zeal, on a basis of absolute right and absolute wrong.

Those who, imagining that all mistakes and malicious acts are the work of a malign or deluded 'elite,' cry with Carl Sandburg, 'The people, yes!'

Those who assure us that great corporations can do no wrong.

Those who discourse mainly of the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderburgers, and the Council on Foreign Relations.

And various other gentry who abjure liberalism but are capable of conserving nothing worth keeping."

-- Russell Kirk, 1986 (here)

Catholic Republicans Gang Up On Protestant Todd Akin

Laura Ingraham calls him a liar, Sean Hannity gives a prominent forum to Ann Coulter, who likens Akin to Eliot Spitzer and elsewhere calls him a swine, and Hugh Hewitt encourages him to drop out. Oh yeah, and throw in the VP nominee, well after the deadline.

Old Republican Fools For Romney

"The hoary fool, who many days

Has struggled with continued sorrow,

Renews his hope, and blindly lays

The desp'rate bet upon tomorrow."

-- Matthew Prior

Ann Coulter Champions Exception For Abortion In Cases Of Rape On Hannity

Why is it we hear the loudest shrieks for mortal sin from the mouths of Republican Roman Catholics?

The Voting-Third-Party Line of the Day from Forbes.com

“ Always vote for a principle, though you vote alone, and you may cherish the sweet reflection that your vote is never lost. ”

-- John Quincy Adams

What Do Arguments For TARP And Arguments For Romney Have In Common?

Fear.

The Growth In Income Inequality Wasn't A Bug, It Was A Feature Invented By Liberalism

If you generally tax some income at one rate and other income at a lower one, what do you think would happen over a long period of time?

Obviously you would see income shift to the category taxed at the lower rate, to the extent that this is possible for those earning it.

This is what has happened with income from capital gains, the tax rate on which has been much lower by law than the tax rates paid on ordinary income.

That's the long-term lesson from the data, the salience of which seems to elude Bruce Bartlett writing for The New York Times:

For most people, income is simple: it means wages or perhaps a pension or Social Security benefits. Income from capital – dividends, interest, rent and capital gains – seldom enters into the calculation. The vast bulk of such income is earned by the ultrawealthy, like Mr. Romney.

According to the Tax Policy Center, in 2011 those in the middle of income distribution got about 70 percent of their income from labor and only about 3 percent from capital. By contrast, those in the top 1 percent of income distribution got 30 percent of their income from labor and 35 percent from capital.

The disparity is even more pronounced when one looks at the distribution of aggregate capital income. The total came to $1.1 trillion last year. Of this, 86 percent was earned by those in the top 20 percent of households, ranked by income. But this figure is misleading, because within the top quintile, the vast bulk of capital income went only to those at the very top. ...

[T]he tax code makes a sharp distinction between income from labor and income from capital. Wages are fully taxed at rates as high as 35 percent by the income tax, plus taxes for Social Security and Medicare. In contrast, realized capital gains and dividends on corporate stock are taxed at a maximum rate of 15 percent and do not bear any taxes for Social Security or Medicare.

Income inequality in America has grown precisely for this reason, and it is an artifact of progressivism, and of liberalism generally.

The contemporary distinction between capital gains and ordinary gains got much of its impetus under FDR, when the modern tax code differentiated for the first time between capital gains held for 1, 2, 5 and 10 years, exempting from taxation 20 percent of gains, 40 percent, 60 percent and 70 percent, for the respective holding periods. Considering how steep and confiscatory marginal tax rates became after 1916, the provisions under FDR look like a bone thrown to the rich. What these reforms did, however, was cement the trend toward tax avoidance for the rich which had been introduced earlier.

Originally capital gains had been taxed as ordinary income up to a rate of 7 percent, which was the top marginal income tax rate for the first three years of the modern income tax. But as marginal tax rates on ordinary income skyrocketed after 1916, the low 7 percent capital gains rate continued to apply until 1921, after which the rate was 12.5 percent, regardless of holding period and despite the fact that marginal income tax rates soared to 63 percent and higher as the years marched on.

So from the very beginning the rich were given their privileges in tax avoidance by making distinctions between income while the broad mass of the people got soaked with income taxes on their ordinary income. The steeply progressive rates made it appear that the rich were paying their fair share when in effect they had recourse to a back door to ameliorate their condition through the capital gains code provisions. Liberalism was nothing if not hypocritical. 

If our tax policy goal today is to reduce income inequality, as seems to be the prevailing notion among liberal and liberal-leaning commentators, we ought to reconsider that history and appreciate better how tax policy is often just pushing on a string. To a conservative what leaps to mind is making taxes on ordinary income look more like taxes on capital gains income by flattening rates, not the other way around, raising capital gains rates to look more like progressive income tax rates, and broadening the base up the scale by capturing all income of all kinds for Social Security and Medicare before considering broadening the base down the scale by abolishing tax loss expenditures like the mortgage interest deduction. 

Income inequality begins with treating some forms of income differently than others for tax purposes. There may be important social and economic reasons for doing so, such as promoting family formation or capital investment, but it should never be forgotten that you will immediately be introducing inequality into the equation when you do. How you compensate for that is what matters in approximating a just society. 

Paladins of Economics Eschew the Mob and Excuse the Fed

So says Brian Domitrovic for Forbes, who thinks the Fed's bad habits are congenital.

Domitrovic calls attention to the glaring omission of monetary reform in Mitt Romney's economic proposals, about which his hundreds of recent endorsers from the economics profession have likewise said not a word:

This is a worrisome tendency in economics, on two counts. The first is that the vox populi is probably onto something. Why should the profession risk being wrong on such an important issue?

There is perhaps no institution in our government that has been so cornered by economists as the Fed. The Fed is the place most dominated by the credentialed Ph.D.’s of the profession. It would rankle economists to concede that despite this capture of the Fed by their ranks, the Fed was at fault for causing the worst economic crisis in eons. It would implicate the profession in the whole mess.

Gee, just maybe it's because the capture has gone precisely in the other direction: economics professionals profit from the status quo which puts them in the center of the system which puts them and their friends first in line for the funny money. Why do you think people so desperately worship the presidency in this society, and so desperately want to possess it?

Read the whole thing here.

Byron York Doesn't Get It: EVERY Toss Up State Matters If Romney Loses Florida

Mitt Romney can take a loss in a New Hampshire or an Iowa, give or take, but if he loses in Florida he cannot. Romney absolutely must win in every single other toss up state if he loses Florida, from Iowa to New Hampshire to Nevada to Ohio to Wisconsin to Virginia to Colorado to North Carolina, in order to win.

Iowa doesn't have a special meaning, especially now if it's really true that Michigan moves into the toss-up column as Real Clear Politics says today. Rick Santorum did especially well here in Michigan with pro-life Democrats, who also helped pick Todd Akin in Missouri, and Romney's throat cut to Todd Akin today isn't going to play well with Santorum's supporters, an incident which post-dates the poll taking Michigan out of the leaning-Obama category. The broader point is that 56 percent of Republican primary voters in Michigan picked someone other than Romney: either Santorum, Gingrich or Ron Paul. Romney might have capitalized on the new poll had he not flubbed on Todd Akin. It just shows Romney is still not a skilled politician.

Mitt Romney has emphasized protecting Medicare in Florida as a matter of first importance because he knows Florida is the key to his victory in November. If he can convince seniors there, he can convince them anywhere. Florida makes it easier to win in this bad environment, but without it, it's going to be very much more difficult.

Misguided story here.

Mitt Romney Just Lost My Vote

If anyone should quit the 2012 race it's Gov. Mitt Romney, not Rep. Todd Akin. Even with the clothespin on my nose I won't be able to do it.

Romney should quit not just for the good of the Republican Party, but for the good of the nation. Surely the Republican convention can come up with someone better than this man Romney, whose political convictions are as uncertain as Barack Obama's biography.

Otherwise Romney is certainly going to lead the Republican Party to defeat in November, just like John McCain did in 2008, and a bunch of us who haven't gone broke already will promptly do so while the likes of David Frum tell us it's no debacle. Only in the Republican Party can conservatism be transformed from opposition to the welfare state in 1965 into support for Medicare as a matter of principle in 2012. And you feared Barack Obama would transform America.

The only thing Romney is proving in the case of Rep. Akin is that Republicans once again don't know how to fight, and don't understand how politics works.

Winning parties like the Democrat Party rally around their own when they are in trouble, and at the minimum do not make things worse for themselves by joining in on the criticism of individuals who make mistakes. A good recent example is Rep. Charlie Rangel who has been censured by the US House but is still standing, and quite happily so. Republicans, by contrast, have a habit of rushing at the first sign of trouble to distance themselves from members who come under fire, and end up isolated and alone, resorting to their own devices to survive.

No one but a fool wants such for friends. The voters can smell that smell for what it is: lack of self-confidence. And then they vote accordingly.

My hunch is Missouri will have a new senator named Todd Akin come November, and America will have another four years of Barack Obama.

We deserve it.

Not Only Is Rep. Paul Ryan A Hypocritical Catholic, So Is Radio Talker Sean Hannity

Just now he said he's fairly libertarian on the issue of contraceptives and doesn't object to their use by Americans.

That's not the position of the Roman Catholic Church, to which he belongs and readily and publicly subscribes.

What we're witnessing in America isn't just the shallowness of the beliefs of rank and file Catholics, but also of their most public representatives.

Obama must be thrilled.

Water Is Nineteen Times Rarer Than Gold

"Bodies are much more rare and porous than is commonly believed: water is nineteen times lighter, and by consequence nineteen times rarer than gold . . .."

-- Sir Isaac Newton

Even On The Most Generous Interpretation Of The Data, Rep. Akin Of Missouri Is Right

There are about 6 million pregnancies in the US every year.

The wildest estimates of pregnancy resulting from rape range from as few as 200 to as many as 83,000, the latter representing many self-reported cases.

As a percentage of all pregnancies, 83,000 pregnancies represents almost 1.4 percent of the total.

Calling that rare evidently is impermissible among liberals, and frightened conservatives like Rush Limbaugh. But if 1.4 percent isn't rare, I don't know what is.

The sorriest spectacle today is how conservative talk radio is throwing Todd Akin under the bus.

Romney/Ryan Response To Akin On Abortion Contradicts Roman Catholic Teaching

Will Rep. Paul Ryan, a Roman Catholic, get a pass from the Roman Catholic Church for opposing its teaching on abortion?

In response to the inelegant remarks of Republican Senate hopeful Rep. Todd Akin from Missouri, the Romney/Ryan campaign says it does not oppose abortion in the case of rape, which is not the position of the Roman Catholic Church.

The New York Times reports, here:

The Republican presidential ticket of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan was quick to distance itself from Mr. Akin’s remarks.

“Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin’s statement,” the campaign said. “A Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.”

Rep. Ryan's position permitting abortion in instances of rape constitutes formal cooperation in a crime and self-excommunication according to the Roman Catholic catechism, here:

Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

Rep. Akin's position against abortion in all circumstances is identical to Catholicism's whereas Rep. Ryan's position explicitly contradicts his own religion.

That's the Republican Party: where conservatives like Rep. Akin are not welcome, but open hypocrites, and fudgepackers from the Log Cabin crowd, most certainly are.

"Valuations Remain Unusually Rich"

So says John Hussman, here:

Valuations remain unusually rich on our measures . . . it should be of some concern (though it is clearly not) that the price/revenue multiple of the S&P 500 is now above any level seen prior to the late-1990’s market bubble. Prior to that time, the highest post-war peaks were in 1965 (which was not followed by a deep or immediate decline, but marked the onset of what would ultimately become a 17-year secular bear market), and 1972, just before the S&P 500 lost nearly half of its value.

The Shiller p/e bears him out (esp. the post-war peak on January 1, 1966 at 24.06 vs. nearly 23 today, and the post-war nadir of 6.64 in July/August 1982, a 72 percent decline in valuation over the course of the secular bear and the mother of all buying opportunities since the war):

The price for performance remains steep.

With "You Didn't Build That" Obama Revealed We're No Free Market Economy

Barack The Builder-Thief

Consider Sheldon Richman, here, emphasis added:

"What we have—and have had for a long time—is corporatism, an interventionist system shot through with government-granted privileges mostly for the well-connected–who tend to be rich businesspeople. This system is maintained in a variety of ways: through taxes, subsidies, cartelizing regulations, intellectual “property” protections, trade restrictions, government-bank collusion, the military-industrial complex, land close-offs, zoning, building codes, restrictions on workers, and more. As a result, people can get rich at the expense of the government’s victims. Even some who have prospered apparently by market means have actually done so through government intervention, such as transportation subsidies and eminent domain. Wealth can be transferred in many ways besides welfare and Medicaid, some of them quite subtle. Most transfers are upward."

Obama's flub in "you didn't build that" wasn't some supposed expression of disdain for free-market capitalism, but rather a too-open affirmation of the collusion which exists in America between government and business, a collusion redolent of the fascism of an earlier era.

The line was supposed to be, before it blew up in his face, a gentle reminder to his peeps that they owe their continued success to his stewardship of this system of corporatist largesse. 

In stating the obvious Obama has let the cat out of the bag and proven himself an unreliable leader for the game of charades we call the free market economy. He let his guard down and opened a window on this uncomfortable truth about America, that in economics we consider our advocates of free market capitalism analogous to the preachers of fundamentalist Christianity. It's a free country and that's all well and good, as long as you're not really serious.

Obama's mistake is that he said all that out loud. He can be replaced.

(image source)