Editors' Blog

Did Josh Dugger Sue the State of Arkansas?

I noted earlier that Joseph Hutchens, the former Arkansas State Trooper now serving a lengthy child porn sentence, says that Jim Bob Duggar dramatically underplayed the scope and scale of son Josh Duggar's instances of molestation when he brought Josh to talk to Hutchens in 2003. Now, though, In Touch Weekly is reporting that in 2007, when Josh Dugger was 19 he sued the Arkansas Department of Human Services to prevent them from making a finding against him or possibly to prevent on-going monitoring of his interactions with his sisters.

Read More →


We've got your FIFA corruption scandal covered: 5 Points on the investigation that is rocking international soccer, This Chart on how the allegedly corrupt enterprise worked, and the full indictment to peruse at the bottom here. In depth enough for soccer fans, accessible enough for muckraking fans!

Disgraced Pedophile Trooper Contradicts Jim Bob Duggar's Story

So Joseph Hutchens, the pedophile former Arkansas State Trooper, now doing 56 years on a child porn conviction, says Jim Bob Duggar lied when he told police he'd taken son Josh Duggar to see Hutchens for a talking to about fondling young girls. Hutchens says Duggar dramatically downplayed what was known - claiming it was a single incident with a single girl and only through her clothes rather than multiple times with multiple girls, etc. Here's the latest.

Sepp Blatter Escapes ... For Now

If there's anything amusing about this morning's FIFA raid and indictments, it's that most of the stories hasten to point out -- often in the headline -- that FIFA president Sepp Blatter was not himself indicted. Because any story about FIFA corruption usually begins and ends with Blatter. The New York Times, for example: FIFA Officials Are Arrested on Corruption Charges; Sepp Blatter Isn't Among Them. For a point of reference, here's that remarkable Sepp Blatter takedown from John Oliver last summer.

No Controling Authority

It is increasingly difficult to find any unifying theory or rationale behind the Supreme Court's election and election financing decisions other than the goal of securing the electoral interests of the Republican party. That sounds harsh. But a simple process of elimination leaves little other conclusion. States rights, originalism, deference to legislatures, various constructions of democratic theory and a lot else are controlling except when they're not controlling. Most of the decisions line up with the conservative jurisprudence espoused by the Court's conservative semi-majority. Except when they don't. Cases are plucked out of the lower courts long before the high court has any obligation or need to intervene. The new case which will review the 'one person, one vote' rule which has been reining law for half a century would likely diminish the voting power of cities vs rural areas, minorities vs whites and Democrats vs Republicans, if decided on behalf of the plaintiffs. In other words, why not? It's a big deal. Here's our 5 Points run-down about what you need to know about this case.

Echoes of the 1930s (Dingbat Edition)

We treat it as a given today that denying the scientific consensus on climate change is something close to an orthodoxy in the Republican party. Meanwhile a major faction of the party is similarly opposed to teaching evolutionary theory and the science of natural selection. But this squabbling around the GOP's new Supreme Court challenge to Obamacare captures a similar but even more striking dimension to the same phenomenon: A comically willful rewriting of history that seems so eagerly, perhaps slavishly embraced that it is not even clear whether the people arguing the latest zig or zag in the party line know it's nonsense or whether ideological commitment and peer pressure has convinced them that the new marching orders are really the truth.

Read More →

Don't Miss

Mini Blogs