Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Dick the Prick

...has crawled out from his lair to bask in the temporary media spotlight his Exploding Heads book makes inevitable. Glenn Greenwald, as usual, has the definitive take on this situation, and he is quoted in numerous other articles on the subject 'round the blogosphere, the best of which that I've read are here, here and, most especially, here. Dahlia Lithwick demonstrates why she remains one of the few remaining reasons to read Slate:
It's currently fashionable to believe that political and ideological battles are "real," and it is the law that is empty symbolism. But Cheney stands as an illustration of the real-life, practical value of the law. Torture really did become legal after 9/11, and even after it was repudiated—again and again—it will always be legal with regard to Dick Cheney and the others who perpetrated it without consequence. The law wasn't a hollow symbol after 9/11. It was the only fixed system we had. We can go on pretending that torture is no longer permissible in this country or under international law, but until there are legal consequences for those who order or engage in torture, we will only be pretending. Cheney is the beneficiary of that artifice.

Thursday, August 25, 2011

The Rule of Law

Supposedly a Founding Principle. So, who answers to it? And who does not?

Friday, August 19, 2011

What he should have said

The reporter in this interview obviously did a fine job of making Rick Perry look like the chump that he is, but then that task isn't too hard:

Here is what I wish the reported had responded instead:

Yes sir, I hear you saying that "abstinence works" but what clearly DOESN'T work is Abstinence Only education as it's currently taught in Texas schools. One wonders why Texas Republicans continue to pour taxpayer money into programs like this with their poor record of effectiveness, especially in light of Republicans' loud support for school "accountability". Perhaps Texas Republicans have a different standard for the term "works" when it comes to teen pregnancy?

The following states have vastly lower rates of teen pregnancy than Texas: (name states here), all of which teach comprehensive sex education in public schools that includes both abstinence and scientifically accurate biological information about human sexuality. If Texans are, in fact, interested in reducing levels of teen pregnancy in their state, would it not make sense to consider a different approach?

Of course, I'm making up that last part because I haven't done the research, so I'm going out on a bit of a limb. But then, research is the reporter's job!