Readers of this blog know that I am very slow to respond to breaking news. I am usually far behind even other bloggers, let alone news media commentators, in giving my take on such events. It is not out of laziness (ok, maybe a little) or being out of touch. I follow the news closely and usually am aware of things soon after they occur. [Read more…]

The Daily Show looks at Michele Bachmann’s sensational allegation of possible Muslim Brotherhood infiltration into the highest levels of government. Her reckless accusations have caused even her party colleagues to break ranks and criticize one of their own, something that is rare these days. [Read more…]

I had no idea that the election of the first openly gay mayor of a major US city happened in Houston, Texas of all places. And this is her second term, having been first elected to that post in 2009 although she has held other elected posts in the city, such as city councilor and city controller, since 1998. [Read more…]

Cory Doctorow thinks that the questions that are on the current citizenship test for the United Kingdom are too fine-grained in their multiple choice responses. [Read more…]

Ken Silverstein has a good article in the June 2012 issue of Harper’s Magazine (p. 58-59, behind a paywall) looking closely at the resume of one Matthew Levitt, one of the many so-called ‘terrorism experts’ who on closer examination do not seem to have the kind of expertise they claim to have. Their main function seems to be to hype the terrorist threat beyond all recognition and it is easy for them to do so because everyone, except the general public, benefits: They get paid to give their opinion as ‘expert witnesses’ in the government’s prosecution of terrorism cases, the media get to write sensationalistic stories, and the government achieves its goal of keeping the population terrified and docile.

In the past decade, the federal government has brought to trial hundreds of alleged terrorists. Some of these cases have been deadly serious and others decidedly dubious, but regardless of the indictment’s plausibility, prosecutors often rely on an “expert witness” to frame and buttress their charges. In their constellation of star witnesses, few have shone brighter than Matthew Levitt, Ph.D., who has testified or submitted written opinions in at least thirteen terrorism-related trials.
…
Terrorism experts often have professional, ideological, and financial incentives to side with the government. For his turns as an expert witness, Levitt typically bills the government $200 an hour. Not coincidentally, his role also dovetails neatly with the policy objectives of his employer, the Washington Institute, which was founded by the powerful pro-Israel lobby AIPAC. These gigs are, of course, self-reinforcing, each one serving to further legitimate Levitt as an expert. Less well served by this arrangement are defendants, whose cases can be won or lost on the basis of witness testimony that is all the more convincing when the government withholds so much of the hard evidence from the jury.

And so it goes.

I thought that our political leaders had become so jaded that they just did not care about anything anymore. If they were not angry about presidential assassination programs, starting wars without their approval, prosecution of whistle blowers, torture, suspension of habeas corpus, and corporate and financial larceny on a grand scale, to name just a few things, then what possibly could they get mad about? But then along comes an issue that unites and rouses them to great heights of bipartisan indignation. [Read more…]