Mahmoud at Columbia: Surprise!

[DSG2k]

I'd heard (and agreed with) a lot of negative talk regarding Columbia University's invite to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmendinejad, and regarding the claims of Lee Bollinger that this was related to free speech in some way.

After all . . . generally speaking, university professors lean more left than the rest of the country, often resulting in a certain degree of poo-pooing on western civilization, so many assumed that this invitation constituted an affront under the guise of fairness.

Ah, but there's now pie in the face of all who made that assumption, myself included. Lee Bollinger, Columbia's president, whipped out his manhood and slapped Ahmenidinnerjacket around with it, then force-fed him a side order of massive neutronium gonads.

Forgive the florid description, but watch the video here and tell me if there's any better way to describe it.

(Frankly, while I rather dislike the idea of Mahmoud tromping about the countryside in principle, I don't mind it so much when it's like this. Hell, I'd invite him to my place, but I rather doubt I could even approach how succinctly and appropriately Bollinger handled him.)

Beautiful . . . simply beautiful.

[Aaron]

(Frankly, while I rather dislike the idea of Mahmoud tromping about the countryside in principle, I don't mind it so much when it's like this. Hell, I'd invite him to my place, but I rather doubt I could even approach how succinctly and appropriately Bollinger handled him.)

Beautiful . . . simply beautiful.

Yeah because cripes forbid that Americans should be exposed to other opinions or ideas and be left to decide for themselves whether they agree or not. Down with liberal ideals like free speech! Up with draconian rules and regulation!

[DSG2k]

Yeah because cripes forbid that Americans should be exposed to other opinions or ideas and be left to decide for themselves whether they agree or not. Down with liberal ideals like free speech! Up with draconian rules and regulation!

Bite me, Kendall. At no point did I suggest that I was against Constitutional free speech rights granted to citizens. However, the reports that suggested Bollinger was extending this Constitutional concept to Ahmedinejad were incorrect (listen to Pt. 1 of his comments from the same Youtuber), which is good and proper.

Ahmedinejad had no legal right to speak at Columbia, besides that which Bollinger et al. granted him. He is not an American citizen. But as Bollinger so properly put it:

"{...} This event has nothing whatsoever to do with any rights of the speaker, but only with our rights to listen and speak. We do it for ourselves. We do it in the great tradition of openness that has defined this nation for many decades now. We need to understand the world we live in, neither neglecting its glories, nor shrinking from its threats and dangers. It is {...} consistent with the idea that one should 'know thine enemies' to have the intellectual and emotional courage to confront the mind of evil and to prepare ourselves to act with the right temperament.

In the moment, the arguments for free speech will never seem to match the power of the arguments against. But what we must remember is that this is precisely because free speech asks us to exercise extraordinary self-restraint against the very natural but often counterproductive impulses that lead us to retreat from engagement with ideas we dislike and fear.

In this lies the genius of the American idea of free speech."

Damn right.

So please, dear Kendall, take your twisted and warped view of me and anyone else who disagrees with you and toss it. You seek to apply all manner of evils onto those who disagree with you, while simultaneously seeing nothing wrong with those who are, in fact, evil.

This renders singularly unique your suggestion that I would be against free speech, since it is you who seeks its suppression via your spin and lies. That is, you seek to silence your opponents with flames and name-calling . . . a carry-over from your home forum which you could do much better without.

If you wish to oppose me and my words, oppose me and my words . . . not the rabid enemy you imagine and words you fabricate yourself.

[Aaron]

On the contrary your very Constitution grants this fellow the right to free speech while in the country. The US Constitution applies to all citizens and guests of the country equally. I suggest you look it up, it's in one of the ammendments.

Edit: and do try not to mention my home forum and your imagined reasons for my opposition to you. I've done you the favour of not mentioning your past or any of your history.

[Aaron]

Here it is:

Q25. "As a British national, what constitutional rights, if any, is Louise Woodward entitled to?"

A. This question is more one of U.S. law than of the U.S. Constitution. However, it is an interesting one:

Woodward could have been summarily deported back to the U.K.; or she could be tried under the normal rules of law. If you are tried in a U.S. criminal court, you are entitled to all rights enjoyed by citizens in the court, even if you are not a citizen. There may also have been an agreement in effect that she, as an au pair contracted with the United States Government, agreed to be subject to its laws.

Generally speaking, anyone physically in the U.S. will be treated as a citizen, with all rights guaranteed a citizen. There are some exceptions to this general rule. For example, while entering the United States (and physically in the United States), a foreign national can be detained and expelled. In some cases, detention is for an unlimited amount of time, and some illegal immigrants have been held for years on end.

[Mikey]

More to the point, why should I (as a Jewish American) be afrais to hear what the Iranian president has to say? I will NOT try to spell his name, BTW. I already know he has claimed the Holocaust to be fiction, etc.; what Bollinger did in extending the invitation is to be applauded not for permitting I-mend-and-jab to speak, but for allowing Americans to speak back.

Also, Bollinger's commentary during the presentation was wonderful to read.

[Granitehewer]

oh mikey, my man, you mistake the persian view on israel,when they say that they do not recognise the state of israel, it is because the remedial education system, teaches them that there are only four states; solid, liquid, gas and intolerant bigoted mental-pygmies. lol

[Mikey]

rofl!

It was also noticed - by professional observers, not by me - that I-mend-and-jab was far more conservative with his vitriol than normal, and used somewhat milder language. While this may be do to the fact that his brand of hatred is becoming unpopular even in Iran, I would like to think that in some small way it is partly due to the fact that he was given a forum to air his views and then put in his place for it.

[DSG2k]

More to the point, why should I (as a Jewish American) be afrais to hear what the Iranian president has to say?

It's not that you should be afraid of him speaking, but his extraordinarily rabid anti-Semitism, Holocaust-denial, and so on ought to be frightening. Moreover, he's a practiced liar, quite ready to behave and speak fairly reasonably, as if he'd never do anything amiss, while simultaneously dreaming of the destruction of Israel and the US in nuclear fire, supporting insurgencies against and murder of US troops, et cetera.

The issue with him speaking is one of strategy . . . he'll edit things and play it off as a PR victory at home, and of course there are plenty of wackos in the US who will just eat him up like he's some sort of Persian messiah. The question was whether it was better to deny him access or let him come, and Bollinger, I think, made a fair call.

I don't think we should have Mahmoud over every weekend or anything, but I think there was a certain utility in the whole deal re: Bollinger's direct questions. It's not like an American journalist would feel comfortable taking him to task in such a fashion in Tehran.

I will NOT try to spell his name, BTW.

"Mahmoud" isn't hard, which is why I type it half the time. "Ahmedinejad" I had to look up to double-check myself, 'cause I don't think I've ever had to spell it before. The tricky part is what's between "Ahme" and "jad", i.e. the "dine" . . . remember food (i.e. his everpresent dinner-jacket) and you're all set.

[DSG2k]

On the contrary your very Constitution grants this fellow the right to free speech while in the country. The US Constitution applies to all citizens and guests of the country equally. I suggest you look it up, it's in one of the ammendments.

I'm not familiar with the amendment . . . neither are you, apparently, since you linked to a FAQ only.

The point you're missing is that he was only a guest of Columbia because of the invitation. Ergo free speech to guests, if applicable, only applied then. Ergo it was right and proper for people to question the invitation on that basis, though as noted I concur completely with Bollinger's stance (and even Bollinger said he viewed such positions as reasonable).

(Yes he's here for the UN stuff, but offering dude a forum at which to speak is not required under free speech. He could just stand outside the hotel and yap away.)

Edit: and do try not to mention my home forum and your imagined reasons for my opposition to you. I've done you the favour of not mentioning your past or any of your history.

Like my political stance, my history of opposition to your home forum is not what you make of it. Reality, as always, is rather different than your view.

[DSG2k]

rofl!

It was also noticed - by professional observers, not by me - that I-mend-and-jab was far more conservative with his vitriol than normal, and used somewhat milder language.

Ahmedinejad is not stupid. You'll seldom find an intelligent hate-filled tyrant who would fail to massage his message depending on audience. "Death to Israel, death to America" type stuff wouldn't exactly have played well to US cameras, after all.

For a historical example, look up Hitler circa the Chamberlain appeasement years.

[Granitehewer]

Regardless of mental gymnastics, cunning linguistics, cloak and dagger diplomacy, clandestine editing or political machiavelli employed, the man is an abomination,but not entirely unrepresentative of the main iranian, lebanese or peshewari shia sects, it is all too easy to focus vitriol onto one serpent, but then to be optimistically naive of the snakes' nest beneath.
The united states by allowing him over, may score a coup for freedom of speech and western ideals, but to many in the islamic world, will appear weak or even foolish...
If that b*stard ventures to ground zero, it would be grossly inappropriate unless he geniunely grieves for the victims.What would be even more horrendous, would be the resultant misutilisation of footage in the various farsi and arabised countries as well as the turkic central asian and indoeuropean countries.

[Aaron]

Better yet, the 14th Ammendment states this:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

*Edit:Here's the link.

[Monroe]

Since I started reading this thread and it appeared to turn into arguing I'll just skip to the end

I think it was a neat opportunity that Columbia did and I'm surprised the Iranian president agreed. I would have liked to see a democratic and a republican presidential candidate there also and have a three way debate going. Now that would have been cool. Probably wouldn't have been able to get the major candidates but seeing Obama up there would have been awesome since he wants to actually sit down and talk now would be his chance.

[Aaron]

They should have had him debate Bush. That would have been far more entertaining and enlightening.