Straight Up |: July 2007 Archives

When you're a mathematician who analyses weapons systems as an independent consultant to the U.S. government, you pay attention to military appropriations (not least because you like to get paid). So it was eyebrow-raising to receive a message from just such a weapons analyst telling me how much he'd learned from Adam Cohen's recent editorial, "Just What the Founders Feared: An Imperial President Goes to War."

The editorial goes to the heart of the war-funding debate by describing the attitude of the Constitution's framers toward presidential power, which they regarded with apprehension especially when it came to the monarchical prerogative of making war.

I'm still pondering why Noam Chomsky's recent article, "Imminent Crises: Threats and Opportunities," was listed on the rightwing cultural site Arts & Letters Daily.

At first I thought it was because the site's founding editor Denis Dutton and managing editor Tran Huu Dung sometimes include maverick pieces from the left that have intellectual heft. Besides, I figured they have a grudging respect for Chomsky's take on the world even if they disagree with it.

Paul Krugman zapped a fellow New York Times columnist this morning with a sharp rebuke, basically calling him a Bush patsy and accusing him of being an enabler if not a believer:

In a coordinated public relations offensive, the White House is using reliably friendly pundits -- amazingly, they still exist -- to put out the word that President Bush is as upbeat and confident as ever.

Perhaps out of politeness, although more likely out of Times protocol, Krugman doesn't name him. But in case you missed who he means -- since he does name Republican Sen. Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana and Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, as key Bush enablers -- the patsy pundit Krugman means is David Brooks.

Who says we don't blog about high kulcha? Here's something to chew on. "One of the more profound statements on German opera," a friend writes.

Never thought I could listen to Bruce Fein without throwing a brick at him. But, man! The nerdie rightwing legal beagle is worth hearing on why the President With His Head Up His Ass and his Attack Dog must be impeached. Yes, must.

Why would I believe Fein on impeachment now when I didn't believe him when he went after Bill Clinton? (He wrote the first article of impeachment against Clinton.) Because in this instance, contrary to his specious puritanical reaction to a sex scandal, Fein makes a be-yooo-tifully justifiable case against the two of leaders of the BananaRepublic.

He did it on Bill Moyers Journal the other day, as he did earlier on Slate against the Attack Dog alone. You can watch Fein do it. Click "watch video" to see the segment. He makes the case, along with leftie John Nichols. (The 'twain doth sometimes meet.) If you prefer to read what they said, click "read transcript."

And here's the video of Moyers' intro. I hope it's a sign of things to come, though our spineless pols make it doubtful.

Cherry-picking is kosher -- yes it is.

(Crossposted at HuffPo)

Can't let the week go by without noting "The Other War: Iraq Vets Bear Witness" in The Nation, a devastating piece of eye-witness testimony described by its authors as an investigation into "alleged military misconduct" of U.S. troops in Iraq.

The three words alleged military misconduct are a legalistic euphemism for the banalized horrors of the war -- "indiscriminate killings" of innocent civilians, "checkpoint shootings," night raids by stormtroopers who act like the Gestapo -- all of which are detailed in firsthand accounts by veterans willing to speak up.

As Spc. Garett Reppenhagen, 32, of Manitou Springs, Colorado, a cavalry scout and sniper, points out, "It's just the nature of the situation you're in. That's what's wrong. It's not individual atrocity. It's the fact that the entire war is an atrocity."

But will the American public get it? Despite polls that say popular opinion has turned against the war, some observers doubt it will make much difference in the long run.

(Crossposted at HuffPo)

Steve Skrovan writes:

Just read your blog on Huffington about Ralph Nader.  As one who has studied Nader for the past five years, I found it to be [praise omitted]. I directed along with my partner, Henriette Mantel, a documentary on Nader's life entitled "An Unreasonable Man," and since I suspect now you will be receiving the same shit that we have been dealing with all this time, it might be worth a look-see.

We were in the documentary competition at Sundance in '06, made the Oscar shortlist this year, had a theatrical release this past spring and had a two-disc DVD released last month. In addition to the film, the DVD has a number of featurettes on such topics as "The Role of Third Parties," "Corporate Power in America," "Why the Right is Better Organized than the Left,"  "What Happened to the Democratic Party?" "Ralph on the Iraq War," "What Kind Of President Would Nader Be?" and a psychological profile of Nader entitled "Profile Of A Charismatic Leader."  Our website is anunreasonableman.com.  There you will find links to many of our reviews.

We'd be curious to know what you think.

Here's what I think. I haven't seen the flick (yet). The reviews are remarkable. But the best, by far, is Chris Hedges' review at truthdig.

Whenever Ralph Nader comes on the tube, which isn't often enough, it's must-see TV. He's in a class by himself. I don't know of any politician, civic leader or social firebrand who can match him for his unique combination of level-headed insight, deep intelligence, real accomplishment and passionate straight talk.

For instance, in a must-see interview that aired this morning on Democracy Now!, here's what he said about whether the lame duck President With His Head Up His Ass still matters:

Yeah, he matters because he's a national security menace. He's a destroyer of our Constitution, a violator of our statutes, a revoker of our regulations. He's a war monger. He's a war criminal -- clinically a war criminal -- and he's still in charge. And as I said some time ago, he's a giant corporation in the White House masquerading as a human being, although I sometimes wonder about the word "human." I don't think it's possible to see a more obsessively compulsive person with so much contempt for the traditions of our country ...

That's just a snippet of Nader's wide-ranging discussion of health care, corporate government, campaign financing, the current crop of presidential candidates and the general political realities of the BananaRepublic. (You can also read the transcript.)

(Crossposted at HuffPo)

Whatever it's called -- an assault on the rule of law or a prison break -- it comes as the latest illustration of the BananaRepublic's independence from democratic principles. The President With His Head Up His Ass and his Attack Dog have sprung their Lap Dog, just in time for the nation's Independence Day fireworks.