1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  |  9  |  10  |  11  |  12  |  13  |  14  |  15  |  16  |  17 

April 28, 2012

Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.

When Rightwing think tanks like AEI and Brookings come out and say this, you know we are in serious trouble. This is, specifically, an impassioned plea to the press to do their fucking jobs. I like that they specifically address the common media tactic of "both sides did it" or false equivalency or the "the Left says X and the Right says Y so the truth must be in the middle!" without bothering to, y'know, actually fact check or figure out the truth. If I say water is a liquid and you say water is superheated plasma, the truth is not in the middle. You are just wrong. This can happen. It does in fact happen all the time, despite what the media say. The modern Republican party has given up any pretense at caring about governing America. They want power. They want to beat the Democrats. And they don't want any taxes. That's it. Good governance or doing what is right is no longer part of their operating instructions. Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem. - The Washington Post
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party. The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition. When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges. “Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach. . . . We understand the values of mainstream journalists, including the effort to report both sides of a story. But a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon distorts reality. If the political dynamics of Washington are unlikely to change anytime soon, at least we should change the way that reality is portrayed to the public. Our advice to the press: Don’t seek professional safety through the even-handed, unfiltered presentation of opposing views. Which politician is telling the truth? Who is taking hostages, at what risks and to what ends? Also, stop lending legitimacy to Senate filibusters by treating a 60-vote hurdle as routine. The framers certainly didn’t intend it to be. Report individual senators’ abusive use of holds and identify every time the minority party uses a filibuster to kill a bill or nomination with majority support. Look ahead to the likely consequences of voters’ choices in the November elections. How would the candidates govern? What could they accomplish? What differences can people expect from a unified Republican or Democratic government, or one divided between the parties? . . .

Innocent man freed from 25 years in Texas prison after hidden evidence comes to light

Our criminal justice system relies on both sides sharing evidence so that the strongest possible case for both sides can be built. Hiding exculpatory evidence is an absolute perversion of justice. When cops do this, they should be fired. They were so sure the husband did it--because they didn't like the way he expressed grief--that they hid all the evidence that pointed to the real killer. The real killer who went on to kill again. Because these cops did not do their jobs. It's alarming how often we hear these stories about people freed from decades in prison because of police railroading, people who are murdered by the state despite strong evidence of their innocence, of states trying to make it harder for convicted criminals to request DNA tests. It points to a system more concerned with statistics and closing cases than a system concerned with anything resembling justice. Today In Texas Justice - Lawyers, Guns & Money : Lawyers, Guns & Money
This story of another innocent man exonerated after 25 years in prison because of suppressed evidence (while the man who killed his wife was left free to kill at least one other person) contains an excellent of example of the kind of “evidence” that seems to frequently come up when innocent people have been convicted: “There were a lot of cars in the street. There was a big yellow crime-scene ribbon around our house,” he says. “Neighbors were across the street, clustered on the corner … talking to each other, and of course, when my truck comes racing up, they all kind of key on me.” Boutwell met Morton outside the front door and, in front of everyone, bluntly told him Christine Morton was dead, murdered in their bedroom. Morton reeled. “You really don’t know how you’re going to react until it happens to you, and with me, I remember it was as if I was … falling inside myself,” he says. Morton was stunned, nearly mute, which fueled the sheriff’s suspicions and became a major prosecution touchstone at his trial. The fact that Morton didn’t cry out or weep became evidence that he didn’t love his wife and had killed her. . . .