The number of people educated beyond their intelligence seems to rise every year. That statement is one of those things that a plain stupid person would never believe. You have to work really hard to tangle your mind into the shape where it will believe something like that. Or maybe work for the State Department too long.

So, it really isn’t broken here.

CSPAN’s In Depth 3 hour interview yesterday featured Lewis Lapham, former editor for the monthly Harper’s Magazine, of Harper’s Index fame.

Less than 25 minutes into the program Mr. Lapham had Stalin, Hitler and president Bush in the same sentence.

I immediately switched channels as one would expect PBS Nature and found a fundraiser instead.

Godwin’s Law was really a comment on Internet ‘debate’ and its tendency to sprout false arguments in place of actual debate. It’s was (and still is) common to compare ‘Government Official You Don’t Like” to a Nazi. Of course, this is usually a false comparison and tends to comment more on the lack of thought by the poster.

In the case of the Kook of Iran, sure we could compare him to a Nazi… but why would we need to? His actions are Nazi actions, his actions are anti-semitic (actually truly anti-semitic as opposed to say Michael Moore). He doesn’t need Hitler’s name invoked when we can simply quote his statements which induce memories of the Holocaust. He doesn’t need the name of a 20th century Boogey Man. By his own actions, he condemns himself and by his own words we should condemn him.

The Internet, the blogsphere, Live Journal, Myspace, etc etc etc have created places where debate has given way to screeds, fiskings and really, really poor conversation. People type, it seems, without considering the words they write. We can have “debate” about Ahmadinejad’s Naziness, or we can actually debate about Ahmadinejad’s statements and actions. I would prefer the later, but then I suppose some would prefer the former.

Either way, Roger, I’m sure you and I are in agreement when it comes to our personal feelings on Mr. Ahmadinejad. For me, I’d be happy to see him out of power, but his carcass being strung up by revolutionaries wouldn’t be at all upsetting to me.

A good first step is “Bibi” snaring the op ed page of the WSJ.

Forget the Times, the most negative paper in the world.

Absolutley. We should be squeezing Iran everyway possible. The Iranian economy is not robust and depends largely upon petro dollars.

Iran heavily subsidizes oil consumption at home and does not have enough refinery capacity for gasoline. The subsidies discourage conservation and encourage a sense of entitlement to cheap fuel. The refining constraints are another weakness.

There should be a multi-facted strategy designed to isolate politically and economically weaken Iran if there is any hope of change from within Iran. Of course, the Iranian people will suffer – which is always what happens under dictatorships. Make no mistake about it, Iran is a theocratic dictatorship despite illusions to the contrary.

After reading Mark Bowden’s “Guests of the Ayatollah,” I am convinced that the present Iranian leaders are nutso. It will take some truly catastophic event (another 9/11?) to kick in military retaliation from the West.

“Bibi” Netanyahu did an interview in the WS Journal last week calling for an American boycott of Iran through a Congressional act outlawing all investments by corporations doing business with Iran. Short of war, this sounds reasonable and plausible, ratching up the pressure, forcing the stain of complicity through a creative capitalist boycott. A third alternative worthy of discussion and deployment in the face of the weakness in the West at this juncture.

Squeeze the madmen economically, cut off their money and the use of the banks in international transactions. A nice idea. Is it feasible given the jelly fish attitudes in the West ?