The Bollinger/Ahmadinejad farce, Rosa Brooks, LAT

Exactly right: farce. I guess I now have to say:
  1. No, I'm not a Nazi holocaust-denier. I'd have a few more relatives if not for that event.
  2. No, I'm not a fan of Ahmadinejad. He's about as much of an ignorant fool as Bush, but he hasn't killed a million people over the past four years.
  3. No, I don't hate America.
However, Brooks analysis is spot-on. The endless self-congratulation makes me want to puke like the kid in The Exorcist, not least because it's all rolled up into the march to an air war, led by both parties, with Iran.

You all know goddamn well that if Ahmadinejad was "our kind of guy," like the Shah was, he could act identically and no one would give a tenth of a shit about nuclear energy, bombs, civil liberties, or anything else.

Here's the whole farce:

Note the propaganda on Fox if you don't like al-Jazeera English. No, I don't think AJE should have cut into Bollinger's speech.

Nice pause by Bollinger on the "weakness" -- is there anyone with any real fucking balls left in this country?

Sigh. Here's Nat Parry on Bush, Ahmadinejad, and -- crucially -- authoritarianism. Here, not in Iran. -Gasp!- Here's a recent book by the psychologist cited in Parry's parry: Robert Altemeyer.

There simply is no opposition party in this country, not on the Middle East, or in foreign affairs, generally. Hasn't been since 1941, really. If you read about the end of the Roman Republic, especially Cicero's letters, you can see a similar phenomenon occur, as different sectors of the elite play "Constitutional Chicken" with each other, at the plebs expense. Always at the plebs expense. Them and the "barbarians."