The famed educational establishment is getting all sorts of heat since they're inviting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at their campus. Seems he had a hole in his schedule since he wasn't going to be visiting Ground Zero. (No word yet on whether he'll be permitted to go to Disneyland. And if you have to ask why I brought that up, you're too young for me to explain it.)
Naturally the University is being hammered by people who want to see the invitation revoked, because they're incensed that they're being forced to come and listen to him express his viewpoints over...
Oh. Wait. That's right. No one is forcing them to do so, any more than people who are repulsed by certain TV programs or radio shows have had the "off" buttons removed from their TVs and radios.
No, it seems that they are revolted by the very IDEA of the Iranian thug getting up on a stage at Columbia and denying the Holocaust ever existed.
Except...this is America. And at the core of what makes this country great is that, if we find an idea repulsive, we're supposed to respond to it with more ideas, not the smothering of those ideas. He wants to claim the Holocaust didn't happen? Fantastic. Have him do so, and then confront him with survivors of concentration camps, or soldiers who were there when the camps were liberated. Let him call each and every individual a liar to their face, if he can.
But who knows what the long-term result could be? There's no such thing as an instant life-transforming epiphany. Even when it seems that's what's happened, odds are that the groundwork was laid for it over the course of years. Someone like the Iranian president (which is easier to type than his name) isn't going to instantly realize he's wrong, but perhaps the seeds of doubt can be planted, in him or in other deniers. It's worth a shot. The dissemination of ideas is ALWAYS worth a shot.
In point of fact, he probably should have been allowed to lay a wreath at Ground Zero. And he should have been met there by an assemblage of family members of victims, standing there with photos of their loved ones staring accusingly, putting a human face on the terrorism that he purportedly supports.
Perhaps he won't care. Chances are he won't. But again, you never know. The man, for all his bluster, for all his vituperation, for all his wrongheadedness, clearly has a fascination with this country, almost as if he's seeking our approval and has absolutely no comprehension how to go about it.
We speak wistfully of world peace. Of everyone getting along. But many people are reluctant to fully get behind the first step to such a goal, which is to understand the views of those in opposition to them. I'm not saying "agree with" or "condone." I'm saying "understand." Understanding why people believe what they believe, and--if you disagree with them--doing your damnedest to make them understand YOUR point of view. Understanding one's enemy on human terms is the only real path to peace, which should be self-evident since thus far dehumanizing the enemy or trying to bomb him into oblivion hasn't gotten the job done.
The song says, "Give peace a chance." Won't ever happen if speech is smothered.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at September 21, 2007 07:25 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingI've never understood the mentality that equates understanding or explaining a behavior with excusing it. Surely if you're against something, you'd want some idea of how to stop or prevent it, wouldn't you?
After the Virginia Tech shootings, there was a rather snotty online editorial posted by a local paper, all about the awful attempts to come to the root of the killer's problems rather than condemn him for being pure evil. That attitude seems hugely counterproductive to me, designed to let people feel morally superior that they aren't mass murderers rather than showing any concern that it might happen again or trying to stop it.
In the specific case of state-sponsored terrorism, it strikes me that it would be useful to know whether the leader in question supports it through genuine belief, is trying to appeal to supporters who have genuine belief, or is using it to achieve geopolitical goals without any concern for the ideology behind it. Knowing that would give you some idea of whether and how you can deal with them.
I'm for letting him speak and wish they had let him go to ground zero as well. It would make it that much easier for a sniper to take out the trash.
It would make it that much easier for a sniper to take out the trash.
Right. And then all of our problems would be over. No consequences at all.
Well said, Peter. And well said, Doug. For the past several years at least, it seems like a lot of Americans have readily accepted the explanation that the only reason people do things that strike us as reprehensible is "they're evil." So, they reason, what's there to discuss? I like to think that we're moving beyond such simple-mindedness...
No word yet on whether he'll be permitted to go to Disneyland.
But will he bang his shoe on the table while he's at the U.N.?
I'm suspecting the refusal of his being able to visit ground zero is a concern of security. I think the chance of a huge, emotional crowd on site would be large...
And while we already have Americans risking their lives to protect him (Secret Service Agents) at what point is it too much risk to those Americans?
And I agree with letting him speak. I don't think anything has ever been gained by silencing speach. My only question is, at what point does a University having someone give a speach become a sort of implied approval or endorsment of that speaker? Should our institutions give a platform for every nut who wants to speak? Or is there a limit?
"My only question is, at what point does a University having someone give a speach become a sort of implied approval or endorsment of that speaker? Should our institutions give a platform for every nut who wants to speak? Or is there a limit?"
Well, that's three "only question(s)." Taking them in order:
1) I don't think it ever becomes an implied approval or endorsement, especially when the university endeavors to have different points of view represented. It's not fear to read the booking of a speaker with an endorsement unless the University authorities explicitly say, "We agree with everything he says." In this instance, my understanding is that they're embarking on a lengthy study of Iran. That being the case, who better to speak than the country's current president?
2) They shouldn't be compelled to, no. But they shouldn't be compelled not to.
3)There may be, but no one should be entitled to set that limit other than the people who are given the responsibility for making those decisions. The limits should not be imposed courtesy of the heckler's veto.
PAD
I think it worth mentioning that Iran publically denounced the 9/11 attacks when they happened. I am unaware of anything that the Iranian President has personally said about them one way or the other.
Admitting that ignorance on my part Mr. David, your post implies that he, at least, has made some sort of statement of support about the attacks. I am reminded of the whole conflating of Saddam Hussein and 9/11 that went on before the invasion of Iraq. Has the Iranian President or his government changed their tune regarding 9/11 in the interim?
Oh, and regarding the speech at Columbia: it is my understanding there will also be a question-and-answer session. That may be the only opportunity we EVER have to subject the guy to actual tough questions regarding Holocaust-denial, women's rights, nuclear prolifiration, etc.
PAD, I have to disagree with you. Ahmadinejad is not coming to Columbia to seek common ground, he's coming for propaganda purposes. Why should Columbia allow him to use their (rapidly diminishing) prestige to spew his venom? Why should the NYPD spend money on overtime for the officers protecting him during a photo op at Ground Zero?
But let's say you're right, we should give him a platform. Well, Yizkor's tomorrow, would you give a platform at your Synagogue in place of your Rabbi's sermon? There's a precedent for that, since in the Middle Ages European Jews were haraunged every Shabbos by Christian clergy, told they were going to Hell for not converting.
This is not a war of ideas, such as between competing political parties. It is an apocalyptic struggle for him, as he views Israel's rebirth as a sign that his Mahdi is coming. He will do anything to hasten the Mahdi's coming, including turning Tel Aviv and Haifa into smoldering craters if he could. I happen to have relatives living in both cities, so you might understand how I object to that.
Let me end with a story. About twelve years ago I read an issue of the Incredible Hulk that you wrote, in which the Hulk goes to Israel to stop Achilles of the Pantheon from killing the next Hitler. Sabra gets into a brawl with the Hulk, which trashes Jerusalem, and ends with the Hulk about to punch her into the Kosel. Sabra's thought baloon said something about how her superior's would kill her if the Hulk smashed the Kosel. And I was sittting there rapt, until it hit me: the Hulk can't smash the Kosel. He could bang on it for hours, get madder and madder, stronger and stronger, but I felt while sitting there reading that comic that if HaShem did not want Titus to destroy the kosel, or the Jordanian Arab Legion, he wouldn't let the Hulk do so either. (You had the Hulk, whose throat had been paralyzed by Sabra's stinger whisper that he just wanted to talk, and then he lowered his fist.) However Judaism has a clear motto: we don't sit around and wait for miracles to happen. If the Hulk is about to hit the Kosel, you try to stop him from doing so. (And if you can't at least distract the Hulk you're the worst super-soldier in the world. Seriously, why hasn't Ms. Bat-Seraph been fired yet?) If we don't want Ahmadinejad to realize his apocalyptic fantasies, then we have to take action. We should be organizing a boycott of Iran. We should be pulling our troops out of Iraq, so he can't hold them hostage if he launches an attack on any of allies in the Middle East. We should be developing allies to isolate Iran. But we should not invite Ahmadinejad to tea and hope he changes his behavior. I believe the British and French tried that with a dictator who claimed to only want the Sudetenland. How did that turn out?
Anyway, have a G'mar Chasima Tova PAD.
Leor Blumenthal
It would make it that much easier for a sniper to take out the trash.
Yes, let's take out the president of the largest Arab/Muslim democracy. We can quit pretending we believe we can make all this democracy-bs work. Who are we kidding? Then we can work our way up to taking out all of these socialist nations where all the money spent on taking care of people should be spent preparing to kill them. They don't realize the chief virtue of the human race is intolerance. It's all so clear now.
My only question is, at what point does a University having someone give a speach become a sort of implied approval or endorsment of that speaker?
At what point does discussing racism increase its invulnerability?
I'm sure there's an answer, but the taboo against the discussion of race and racism nurtures the denial of racism, and the denial of racism is racism's most reliable shelter, so taboos and censorship aren't the answer.
At what point does discussing racism increase its invulnerability? I'm sure there's an answer...
Now that I consider it further, the examples I was thinking of were examples of lop-sided discussions. Solving a problem rooted in closed access with additional closed access will only work in a fantasy world.
That rings painfully close to home. Canada-Japan culture group I headed until recently has monthly dinners at which a guest speaker/presenter gets to talk about/demonstrate some aspect of Japanese life/culture. This month's was supposed to be the Canadian head of a Japanese religious group which is expanding abroad. Unfortunately, the new Board running things (mostly relative newcomers who decided they wanted a kick at the can last elections so why not?) saw the word 'religion' and went into panic mode. "It's a small group, like a cult, not mainstream, what if someone objects, what if we're seen as endorsing, what if...?" My response to that was "tell them to GET A LIFE already" but fear carried the day and the new executive cancelled the speaker and brought in someone else. This seriously pissed off a founding member who is involved in that group, and cost the board the services of the guy who has been organizing those dinners for over ten years now and who resigned in anger over the Board's action. Yet the new executive still can't see they were wrong here.
As for Columbia, for S'Net's sake, have the guy speak. As Mr. David rightly points out, that's one of the cornerstones of the American Way and it doesn't count if you get free speech but the other side doesn't. With luck, Holocaust survivor groups would get together and have the auditorium packed. Then, one after the other they'd stand, quietly state "I was there" and then walk out. Hard to beat as damning messages go.
Um, what's wrong with just saying Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev was denied permission to visit Disneyland in 1959? I was born in 1978 but I've heard the anecdote. Guess it would have ruined the rhythm of the joke, you're the professional writer around here...
(No word yet on whether he'll be permitted to go to Disneyland. And if you have to ask why I brought that up, you're too young for me to explain it.)
It cuts both ways. People saying the university shouldn't invite him are exercising their free speech, and I've yet to hear anyone demand the gov't step in and force the uni to do it.
People have a right to speak. They don't have a right to be provided someone else's microphone. If people dislike that Columbia is giving out their microphone, they have a right to say so and Columbia has a right to weigh people's outrage in their decisions. That, too, is called liberty.
Should have been allowed to go to Ground Zero. Public place and all. Peaceful Assembly. He's not a citizen, but foreign leaders and diplomats should be extended similar courtesies when they are in the country. If we're going to allow the KKK to march peacefully in a town square (and we do, and should) I don't see why we can't let a Holocaust denier speak too. Equally repulsive.
Columbia is a private university and should be selective in who they invite to speak on campus. But the explanation that they are beginning an educational series on Iran is sufficient explanation for me. The President of Iran is the ideal speaker for such a circumstance.
If the synagogue I am a member of could actually get the President of Iran to speak to us, I'd attend. It would be inappropriate during a High Holy Day service, but on a different day, sure! (Columbia's Speaker Series is a Speaker Series, so inviting a guest to Speak is kind of expected.)
Calling Iran a "democracy" is an abuse of the term. Being able to cast a vote alone does not a democracy make. Elections must be free and fair, and the government must protect certain basic liberties and human rights.
Iran's presidential candidates are vetted by a "Council of Guardians" who ensure that the candidates are loyal to the "ideals" of the "Islamic Revolution." Shi'a Islam is the state-sponsored religion. The Iranian goverment employs torture on a scale that makes Guantanamo look tichy by comparison. Iranian women are brutally oppressed, as sanctioned and in some cases even required by Iranian law.
In any event, however, I agree with Peter: let Ahmadinejad speak at Columbia University. Let him see what it's like to speak on a more level playing field, where people aren't prohibited by threat of force from pointing out how intellectually and morally bankrupt his rhetoric is.
I admit our nation isn't perfect when it comes to the ideal of truly free speech. But we're leaps and bounds ahead of Iran and are the better for it. Let's show that off! I'd rather tell the world we've nothing to fear from a vapid little man like Ahmadinejad, than to send a signal that we're so frightened of him that we must put a muzzle on him.
Dave: "People saying the university shouldn't invite him are exercising their free speech..."
That's irrelevant. The issue isn't whether or not opponents of Ahmadinejad being able to speak at Columbia University are within their rights. They have the right to openly disagree with the University. But that doesn't mean they are right to do so.
Whether or not someone is within their rights is an entirely separate issue from whether or not one feels their intellectual position is the correct one.
I do think it was a mistake on Columbia's part to invite the iranian president. When a prestigious university invites a speaker, it does confer a certain academic legitimacy on that person's opinions. It is a little like inviting a creationist to speak at the biology department or an astrologer in the astronomy department. Even if what you have in mind is the real scientists refuting him (or in this case survivors and historians), he will still be able to go home saying that creationism or holocaust denial was seriously discussed and considered in an academic setting. In Achenidajad's case this actually playing right into his hands, since 'all he wants is an open discussion about the holocaust.' Furthermore, I doubt people who are invited to lecture, and especially world leaders, are brought on stage to be humilated. On the contrary, they are treated very diplomatically. Also, the image of an audience full of dignified holocaust survivors is not going to happen either. What will happen is that at one point a crazy histerical jew or more, probably not even a survivor, will start yelling and foaming in the mouth. This will score Achmedinajad some extra points, and after words he wil tell how the jews who control america tried to silence him. I also don't believe such a lecture is that beneficial on the educational level. It's not like info on Iran, as well as Achemedinajad's own words are not available to western audiences without actually inviting him to speak in one of the world's most prestigeous universities.
That said, since they made the decision to invite him, it must be tolerated. any attempt to bully them to recind the invitation at this stage would be wrong and harmful.
"Yes, let's take out the president of the largest Arab/Muslim democracy."
a. Iran is not an Arab country. The majority are Persians. There are other minority ethinic groups, including arabs, I think.
b.Iran is not the largest muslim anything. Indonesia is the most populous muslim nation, and I also believe it's a democracy at present. I think Kazakhstan is the largest muslim nation geographically.
c. Iran is not a democracy by western standards. I think Inxdonesia is, so it might be intersting to hear from its leader; Malaysia maybe, I'm not sure; and Turkey's new democratically elected Islamic but democratic president.
"It would make it that much easier for a sniper to take out the trash."
A country that is hosting a world leader under diplomatic auspices should not kill him, nor would doing so accomplish anything positive.
Last time I was in NY I saw a small demonstration by american Iranians against Achmenidajad near the library. I think he was visting then too.
The Iranian-Canadian blogger Kamangir can provide some insight about Iran, but he is an opponent of the current government. You can google him.
I myself would love to here him spurt his idiotic ideas on the holocast, but in my fantasy world he would then have to listen to my ideas on how the crusades were a myth...Thus proving his relegions distrust and antichristian motivations are based on the drunken ramblings of a sailor in istanbul in the 10th century.
So at the end of the evening we part ways thinking each other are just misguided idiots. Actualy now that I think about it thats the way most of my dates end up....
Isn't there still a warrant for his arrest active for his participation in the Iran Hostage Crisis? And if so, can we arrest him when he steps off the plane?
" People saying the university shouldn't invite him are exercising their free speech"
I've seen this kind of thinking made before, and I don't think it's actually correct. People saying the university are not really excercising free speech...they're in fact excercising censorship. Free speech protects them from govnerment regulation of what they say, but don't mistake their actions for free speech. It's an act of censorship.
An excercise of free speech in this case would be to set up a debate, or a presentation able to present ideas opposed to those presented by the Iranian President.
Yes, let's take out the president of the largest Arab/Muslim democracy. We can quit pretending we believe we can make all this democracy-bs work. Who are we kidding? Then we can work our way up to taking out all of these socialist nations where all the money spent on taking care of people should be spent preparing to kill them. They don't realize the chief virtue of the human race is intolerance. It's all so clear now.a. Iran is not an Arab country. The majority are Persians. There are other minority ethinic groups, including arabs, I think.
b.Iran is not the largest muslim anything. Indonesia is the most populous muslim nation, and I also believe it's a democracy at present. I think Kazakhstan is the largest muslim nation geographically.
I have no reservation against rephrasing for accuracy what I first present casually. Iran is considered part of the Middle East, is it not? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the president of the largest Middle-Eastern Muslim democracy which is a source of a substantial amount of the world's oil.
Calling Iran a "democracy" is an abuse of the term. Being able to cast a vote alone does not a democracy make. Elections must be free and fair, and the government must protect certain basic liberties and human rights.Iran's presidential candidates are vetted by a "Council of Guardians" who ensure that the candidates are loyal to the "ideals" of the "Islamic Revolution." Shi'a Islam is the state-sponsored religion. The Iranian goverment employs torture on a scale that makes Guantanamo look tichy by comparison. Iranian women are brutally oppressed, as sanctioned and in some cases even required by Iranian law.
c. Iran is not a democracy by western standards. I think Inxdonesia is, so it might be intersting to hear from its leader; Malaysia maybe, I'm not sure; and Turkey's new democratically elected Islamic but democratic president.
Calling Iran a democracy is no more an abuse of the term than referring to the US as a democracy for its first century and a half or so. Garrison Keillor pointed out that the virtue of the prohibition of alcohol was not that blue-nosed puritans wanted to oppress fun, but that men were privileged at the time to get drunk then go home and beat the crap out of their wives (www.azstarnet.com/sn/related/179016.php). If you want to paint democracy as more virtuous that it really is, that isn't the problem of anyone observing the literal definitions of the word.
"government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections"
Neither is true of Iran. In Iran supreme power is vested in the supreme council and in Islamic law.
Furthermore, modern democracy is also usually associated with the existence of certain individual rights that do not exist in Iran.
The analogy to prohibition is irrelevant to this discussion. Prohibition may have been motivated by religious reasons, but was implemented by democratic tools. In Iran religious law is forced on the people and exercised by undemocratic means.
The largest middle easten muslim democracy is still Turkey.
"Admitting that ignorance on my part Mr. David, your post implies that he, at least, has made some sort of statement of support about the attacks. I am reminded of the whole conflating of Saddam Hussein and 9/11 that went on before the invasion of Iraq. Has the Iranian President or his government changed their tune regarding 9/11 in the interim?"
Iran supports terrorists organizations, but it has not supported, to the best of my knowledge, 9/11.
"Posted by: bobb alfred at September 21, 2007 02:25 PM
" People saying the university shouldn't invite him are exercising their free speech"
I've seen this kind of thinking made before, and I don't think it's actually correct. People saying the university are not really excercising free speech...they're in fact excercising censorship. Free speech protects them from govnerment regulation of what they say, but don't mistake their actions for free speech. It's an act of censorship."
Would you say that the position I posted above -- that Colombia was wrong to invite the Iranian president -- is in fact an act of censorship?
Doesn't he get enough free speech time in his own country?
Columbia will let a man speak, that has declared capital punishment on anyone who is homosexual, but won't let the ROTC be on campus because of it's don't ask don't tell policy.
Micha,
Thanx for the reply to the Iran/911 question. As you're someone who lives in Israel, I'll go on the assumption that you would have likely heard of most of the more obnoxious statements that flow out of Iran.
democracy ...government by the people; especially : rule of the majority a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free electionsNeither is true of Iran. In Iran supreme power is vested in the supreme council and in Islamic law.
If you're referring to the council of guardians, they are accountable to the supreme leader, who is accountable to the assembly of experts, who are answerable to elections. If you're referring to the council of ministers, they are accountable to the Iranian president, who is answerable to elections. Democracy.
[Bill Meyers] Iran's presidential candidates are vetted by a "Council of Guardians" who ensure that the candidates are loyal to the "ideals" of the "Islamic Revolution." Shi'a Islam is the state-sponsored religion. The Iranian goverment employs torture on a scale that makes Guantanamo look tichy by comparison. Iranian women are brutally oppressed, as sanctioned and in some cases even required by Iranian law.
Calling Iran a democracy is no more an abuse of the term than referring to the US as a democracy for its first century and a half or so. Garrison Keillor pointed out that the virtue of the prohibition of alcohol was not that blue-nosed puritans wanted to oppress fun, but that men were privileged at the time to get drunk then go home and beat the crap out of their wives (www.azstarnet.com/sn/related/179016.php). If you want to paint democracy as more virtuous that it really is, that isn't the problem of anyone observing the literal definitions of the word.The analogy to prohibition is irrelevant to this discussion.
It's relevant to misogyny, which I cited in demonstrating misogyny's irrelevance in disqualifying democracy.
Without further analyzing, I will say this short thing:
If Gene Ray gave a guest lecture at MIT, then it doesn't seem so impossible for the Prez of Iran to give a speach at Columbia and have everyone realize "Hey, maybe it's to bring about a better concept of HIS ideas so we can understand how MUCH we disagree?"
(And, actully you'll note, that Gene Ray is similarly anti-semetic... he's just not in charge of a country)
To me, the overriding factor is that he's the president of a country. The president of any country is a huge deal. When we refuse to consider the possibility of communicating with him, we hinder ourselves.
Whether he's spewing venom in a Columbia speech or not, I don't see anyone absorbing that venom and coming away from that speech believing in the guy. I don't think anyone in America would be at all closer to being one of his followers after the speech than they were before. So I don't think he's capable of doing any harm while being here. I don't even think he'd deliver a speech in America that remotely resembles a speech he'd deliver in Iran.
But in letting him speak, he gets a chance to see Americans as real people, not just statistics around the world. The Bush administration has taken the policy of not talking to countries it doesn't like, and that has made things so much worse with Iran and Korea. You can't solve things diplomatically if you refuse communication at all. Having him speak at a college university isn't a major act of diplomacy, but it's the same principle. Communication is better than silent mistrust.
It's not purely because of Ahmadinejad. The invitation to him did not happen in a vacuum. At the same time, Lawrence Summers -- the former president of Harvard -- was invited and then disinvited to speak at UC-Stanford. This was because a couple of years ago, when discussing why more men than women seem to be drawn towards mathematics and physics, he wondered -- WONDERED -- if there was some biological difference in the brains of the sexes. That sin cost him his job at Harvard.
The principle you discuss, PAD, is admirable in theory, but it seems it's never put into practice. Extremists from the Left and anti-American people from abroad are granted that privilege, but their ideological counterparts are shouted down, threatened, assaulted, and driven away.
For example: Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, and several others have been openly assaulted when giving speeches. The Minuteman Project people were driven off a stage by a mob. Bush and his cabinet members were offered honorary doctorates to come and give commencement addresses, then the offers were withdrawn under considerable fire from faculty and staff. And don't even get me started on Daniel Pipes or military recruiters.
If academia was anywhere near consistent in following this principle, then they'd have a modicum of respect from me -- and others of my bent. But we hear the lofty ideals that never seem to apply to "our" kind of people, only to those that tend to reinforce the dominant dogma of colleges, and our bullshit detectors nearly explode.
The day that Benjamin Netanyahu is accorded the same kind of treatment as Mr Ahmadinejad on a college campus, then I will respect the colleges. But I don't see that happening any time soon.
J.
Jason M. Bryant said, "The president of any country is a huge deal. When we refuse to consider the possibility of communicating with him, we hinder ourselves."
That reminds me of the Babylon 5 episode "The Coming of Shadows" in which the Narn ambassador G'Kar protests the upcoming arrival of the Centauri emperor. Captain Sheridan tries to point out that G'Kar would have the opportunity to speak directly with the head of the Centuari Republic, but G'Kar refuses to listen.
Now granted the Iranian president's visit to Columbia isn't the same type of thing (a visit to the UN would be more comparable), but as others have said, the visit gives people who attend the event the opportunity to question his statements, either those made at the event or those already on record.
That presupposes, of course, that there will be a set aside time for questions (which he'd take part in) and that he won't just be interrupted by hecklers during his speech.
Rick
If your bullshit detector is telling you Lawrence Summers's, Ann Coulter's, Pat Buchanan's, Rush Limbaugh's, Karl Rove's, or George Bush's access to the American public does not exceed the president of Iran's, it may be time to trade it in for one with the upgraded accuracy.
Mike, I'm not talking about their general access to the American public, I'm talking about their reception and access on college campuses.
Anyone think that the president of Iran might get nailed with a cream pie while at the podium? Greeted with loud, rowdy mobs that try to shout him down?
I thought not.
J.
I'm part of a reasonably prestigious speaker series at work. On the one hand, we don't pay honoraria, so the issue of whether we support someone's ideas/actions by paying them to speak doesn't come up. And we have had controversial people in, and do occasionally make the point that having someone speak doesn't necessarily mean either the company or the people doing the speakers series agree with 'em.
Still, we do have self-imposed limits. The example I like to use is that it's very unlikely we'd ever have Ann Coulter speak. 'Cause as far as we can tell, she has no particularly original or interesting ideas or concepts, but merely preaches hate, and holds no inherently important or interesting position.
We would probably have, say, Billy Graham, William Buckley, Karl Rove, etc. (i.e. any number or religious and/or conservative figures) speak who either actually have ideas and positions to defend and discuss or whom are of significance as to their ideas due o the position they hold/held. But a fair number of these better be ready to defend their views from some very smart people during the Q&A period. We encourage politeness with the questions, but that doesn't stop very pointed ones (nor do we wish to stop such, but we want the questions focused on ideas, not personal invective).
Anyone think that the president of Iran might get nailed with a cream pie while at the podium?
Well, of course not. He'd have massive, highly trained security, and there aren't many people willing to risk throwing their lives away for such a trivial reason. His odds would be much higher of being shot.
Anyone think that the president of Iran might get nailed with a cream pie while at the podium?
Portraying the pie-in-the-face as a denial of access sounds like a step away from comparing Ann Coulter to Rosa Parks insisting on her right to sit at the front of the bus. It's a denial of privilege that's all kinds of wrong.
Greeted with loud, rowdy mobs that try to shout him down?
To paraphrase CS Lewis, why resort to murder to get what you want when cards will do it for you? If he simply can't be put in his place during the q&a, the shortcoming is ours, not his.
Talk radio host Glenn Beck suggests surrounding the Iranian President with Jews while he's here: Jews for his secret service agents, limo driver, etc.
Personally? Let the guy visit ground zero. However, I don't think any level of security would keep him safe. He might walk in, but walking out could be problematic. He might get carried out...
But that wouldn't solve anything either. In fact, it would probably just elevate the problem. Create a martyr of this monster. Propaganda for other of his ilk to use against those "infidels."
I wonder if President Bush went to Iran... just how safe would he be there?
RLR
"Posted by: David Hunt at September 21, 2007 03:24 PM
"As you're someone who lives in Israel, I'll go on the assumption that you would have likely heard of most of the more obnoxious statements that flow out of Iran."
I can't really claim to know much more than you do. Maybe a little more by virtue of our media giving Iran a little more focus than yours.
By the way, have you read Ahmadinajad's letter to Bush?
----------------------
Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at September 21, 2007 04:25 PM
"Whether he's spewing venom in a Columbia speech or not, I don't see anyone absorbing that venom and coming away from that speech believing in the guy. I don't think anyone in America would be at all closer to being one of his followers after the speech than they were before. So I don't think he's capable of doing any harm while being here. I don't even think he'd deliver a speech in America that remotely resembles a speech he'd deliver in Iran."
Do not underestimate the power of ideals, even bad ones, to filter into people minds and affect them. Ideas are very powerful: they multiply themselves by word of mouth, print and internet. And once they come into the world they never go away completely. Ideas are very dangerous. But this is a risk we're willing to take in order for their to be a free exchange of ideas -- so the good ideas make it through.
-------------------------
Mike:
"The analogy to prohibition is irrelevant to this discussion.
It's relevant to misogyny, which I cited in demonstrating misogyny's irrelevance in disqualifying democracy."
I have no idea how you got from prohibition to mysogyny, or how mysoguny in the context of the US has anything to do with realities in Iran now.
-----------------
Mike:
"If you're referring to the council of guardians, they are accountable to the supreme leader, who is accountable to the assembly of experts, who are answerable to elections. If you're referring to the council of ministers, they are accountable to the Iranian president, who is answerable to elections. Democracy."
I don't have the time or the inclination the embark on this kind of Mike-discussion that seems to be starting here. Does Iran constitute a democracy? I'll leave it to the people on this thread to decide on their own. The information about the structure of Iran's government (very complicated) and about how politics work in Iran, human rights etc. are both readily available in Wikipedia or elsewhere. It is quite interesting.
I think the chance of a huge, emotional crowd on site would be large...
Yeah, who knows? A bunch of students might kidnap him and hold him hostage for 444 days...
(of course that wouldn't happen! And pointing that out would be fun! Another lost opportunity for some politically useful snark)
Jay hits the nail on the head--many of the people complaining about this are mad that Columbia and other Universities are very very particular about when they will support free speech. The juxtaposition of this with the Larry Summers debacle, the Chemerinsky hiring-firing-rehiring, the fact that Columbia won't let the ROTC on campus because of their discrimination against gays...but invites the leader of s country that proudly executes gays and isn't the least bit squeamish about anyone knowing it...
Bust you know what? Hypocrisy on campus is no surprise to anyone who has ever gone to college. The politically correct mindset, with its perfect storm of tyranny, cowardice and smug self indulgence, simply attracts hypocrisy like flies to shit. Yet it seems stupid to me to complain about that. What's wrong isn't the hypocrisy, it's the policy. Discriminating against all political groups equally is not the answer, it's not discriminating at all.
Trying to get Columbia to be even less committed to the free exchange of ideas is just excusing their earlier bad behavior.
CU, you are the icon of bigotry. I doubt most highly you would permit Billy Graham or another of his caliber speak at your university or other of the Christian faith, and probably not even of the Jewish faith. Yet you permit this monument of hatred, anti-emitism, and terrorism have free speech at your podium. How much federal funds flow through your school? Perhaps it is time those funds dried up and only those who supported your bend mentality supported your school.
[Bill Meyers] Iran's presidential candidates are vetted by a "Council of Guardians" who ensure that the candidates are loyal to the "ideals" of the "Islamic Revolution." Shi'a Islam is the state-sponsored religion. The Iranian goverment employs torture on a scale that makes Guantanamo look tichy by comparison. Iranian women are brutally oppressed, as sanctioned and in some cases even required by Iranian law.
Calling Iran a democracy is no more an abuse of the term than referring to the US as a democracy for its first century and a half or so. Garrison Keillor pointed out that the virtue of the prohibition of alcohol was not that blue-nosed puritans wanted to oppress fun, but that men were privileged at the time to get drunk then go home and beat the crap out of their wives (www.azstarnet.com/sn/related/179016.php). If you want to paint democracy as more virtuous that it really is, that isn't the problem of anyone observing the literal definitions of the word.The analogy to prohibition is irrelevant to this discussion.
It's relevant to misogyny, which I cited in demonstrating misogyny's irrelevance in disqualifying democracy.I have no idea how you got from prohibition to mysogyny, or how mysoguny in the context of the US has anything to do with realities in Iran now.
The reason you have no idea Bill Meyers literally tried to make misogyny relevant to disqualifying iran as a democracy is because you are in the habit of denying what literally takes place in the same threads you make your denials.
democracy ...government by the people; especially : rule of the majority a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free electionsNeither is true of Iran. In Iran supreme power is vested in the supreme council and in Islamic law.
If you're referring to the council of guardians, they are accountable to the supreme leader, who is accountable to the assembly of experts, who are answerable to elections. If you're referring to the council of ministers, they are accountable to the Iranian president, who is answerable to elections. Democracy.The information about the structure of Iran's government (very complicated) and about how politics work in Iran, human rights etc. are both readily available in Wikipedia or elsewhere
Thank you for validating Wikipedia as a source:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Council
Guardian Council
The council has 12 members: six clerics, conscious of the present needs and the issues of the day, appointed by the supreme leader and six jurists, specializing in different areas of law, to be elected by the Majlis from among the Muslim jurists nominated by the Head of the Judicial Power (who, in turn, is also appointed by the supreme leader).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_of_Experts
Assembly of Experts
The Assembly of Experts... is a congressional body of 86 Mujtahids which elects the Supreme Leader and supervises his activities. Members of the assembly are elected from a government-screened list of candidates by direct public vote to eight year terms.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_Government_of_Iran#Executive_branch
Executive branch
The President is elected by universal suffrage, by those 15 years old and older[1], for a term of four years. Presidential candidates must be approved by the Council of Guardians prior to running. The President is responsible for the implementation of the Constitution and for the exercise of executive powers, except for matters directly related to the Supreme Leader. The President appoints and supervises the Council of Ministers, coordinates government decisions, and selects government policies to be placed before the legislature. Currently, 10 Vice-Presidents serve under the President, as well as a cabinet of 21 ministers, who must all be approved by the legislature. Unlike many other states, the executive branch in Iran does not control the armed forces. Although the President appoints the Ministers of Intelligence and Defense, it is customary for the President to obtain explicit approval from the Supreme Leader for these two ministers before presenting them to the legislature for a vote of confidence.
Democracy.
The juxtaposition of this with the Larry Summers debacle, the Chemerinsky hiring-firing-rehiring, the fact that Columbia won't let the ROTC on campus because of their discrimination against gays...but invites the leader of s country that proudly executes gays and isn't the least bit squeamish about anyone knowing it...
Unless I'm missing something:
...
The politically correct mindset, with its perfect storm of tyranny, cowardice and smug self indulgence, simply attracts hypocrisy like flies to shit.
Who gets held to their tyranny, cowardice and smug self-indulgence? Totalitarian dictators and the politically correct. It's funny how it takes so little privilege for the beneficiaries of political correctness to develop vices not even, say, the chivalrous knights who proudly fought to preserve slavery developed.
"fear carried the day"
Those four words best express the whole situation.
"It would make it that much easier for a sniper to take out the trash."
Hate is hate, people. Why is it okay for us to take out a foreign leader in an unprovoked attack, when we would be insensed if someone did that to us (well, in most cases)? Would we then turn the sniper over to Iran for punishment, as we would demand of them? It is hate that has gotten us where we are, and as a nation that desperately needs to improve our worldly image, we should be doing all we can to appear courteous, friendly, and open to intelligent negotiation. I'm not saying roll out the red carpet and hand over the keys to the city, but treat people as you would want to be treated, no matter what you think of them personally. That is the basis of civility.
Forgive my dorkitude, but to paraphrase Gandalf the Grey, "There are those that live who deserve to die. There are those who die who deserve life. Can you give it to them?"
In other words, it is not up to us to play God. Unless we live in Iran, and know the President personally, we are all victims of the media, and do not know all the facts. Do I hate the man? No. I have no reason to. Do I trust him? Not on your life. But that's no reason to be discourteous. Listen to him in person, without the media's interpretation, and THEN judge for yourself.
"Thank you for validating Wikipedia as a source:"
Mike, I am offering wikipedia as a source, not your interpretation of the information which wikipedia offers provides . This is why I refered people straight to the source.
"The reason you have no idea Bill Meyers literally tried to make misogyny relevant to disqualifying iran as a democracy is because you are in the habit of denying what literally takes place in the same threads you make your denials."
I'm not exactly clear how you got from prohibition to mysogyny. You have made no meaningful comparison between the phenomena of mysogyny in the US -- of which you have not actually said anything of substance -- and the present phenomena of how the Iranian government and law treats women. Nor have you addressed the quite interesting issue of how all this relates to democracy. As usuall you prefered to spin words and have imaginary conversations with yourself rather than actually deal with the issues at hand in a way that would require you to learn and understand real phenomena rather than simple play around with words. What a shame.
Bill of course has not "literally tried to make misogyny relevant to disqualifying iran as a democracy." That's only the inability of your binary mind to process the information.
I must say that I am saddened but not surprised that you apparently find Achadinajad and Bin Laden appealing to the point of becoming an apologist for them. You are not the first to be drawn to these kind of leaders.
Jay, I'm willing to bet you right now that there will be an angry mob at Columbia trying to shout him down. Pie throwing? Probably not, given that his security will likely not let anyone close enough to him to throw a pie. But there will be people trying to shout him down.
Bill Mulligan, I agree with you on this one. Yes, colleges are not always consistent in their positions on free speech, but the answer isn't to validate their inconsistencies by pressuring them to be more restictive. It's to pressure them to be more open. So, let I'm-a-dinner-jacket give his talk and face a little q-and-a. Maybe he'll see that not all Americans are out to destroy Islam after all.
Hell, let Anne Coulter debate him. If nothing else it would be entertaining.
Unless I'm missing something:
enough people Summers worked with simply felt free to publicly say they didn't like him -- there was no other coercion
Yes. You are missing something. As there is no benefit in engaging in conversation with you other than the ignoble feeling of amusement at toying with the obtuse, I feel no great desire to help you out here.
Oh heck, just google "larry Summers" at google news. Rather surprised you missed this; it's been mentioned quite a bit lately.
As far as the principal of free speech is concerns you are all completely correct in supporting free speech and opposing attempts to curtail it in this case.
However your expectations from this actual event are not very realistic. This will not be a debate, a discussion, a learning experience, q & a, understanding. These terms have little to do with what is going to happen in Columbia. What is going to happen is that Achmadinajad will score a few propaganda points -- maybe more maybe less -- and then he'll go home and the world will keep on turning.
Maybe he'll see that not all Americans are out to destroy Islam after all.
I think he knows that, Den. My gut feeling is that he's not as crazy as he acts, as opposed to, say, Hugo Chavez, who is just a whack job.
I don't know that he'll be shouted down though. Tickets are hard to come by and were reserved. The reaction may well be determined by how they were allocated. Having gone to Columbia to visit my mom often back in the day when she was getting her PhD (and I came terrifyingly close to becoming an alumni myself--there's a bad fit!) I can assure you that there are enough hardcore Jew-haters there to make a good showing.
Hopefully the saner members of the school will show up (actually it would be great if he was greeted by an empty auditorium but that's not going to happen) and give him their respectful silence, ask intelligent hardball questions, and let his answers do their own damage.
But it's good to let him talk. Hey! maybe he'll go batshit insane and start blabbing about how, at his speech to the UN, he was surrounded by light and nobody blinked for 27 minutes. Funny, funny man.
Micha, I get what you're saying, but he'd also score propaganda points if we stop him from speaking. At least this way there's always the chance something good will come out of it.
This event and your blog reminds me of some thing that happened on one of the old talk shows back in the 80’s (Donahue, I think). They had a various young racist from areas around the country that didn’t have much chance for interaction with the people they hated, fly to NY city for the show. While they were on the show they spewed their hate speech to a divers audience that gave them hell for it. Six months later they flew most of them back to NY for a fallow up show. Turned out that on their first trip to NY they got to see some thing that they never had a chance to witness first hand. People of different races, religions, and ethnicities living, working, and having fun together. On the follow up show most of them no longer held the their racist and separatist opinions.
the fact that Columbia won't let the ROTC on campus because of their discrimination against gays...but invites the leader of s country that proudly executes gays and isn't the least bit squeamish about anyone knowing it...
I think that's apples and oranges, though. The Iranian president isn't being invited to set up a permanent branch on campus and recruit people to his ideals.
I doubt most highly you would permit Billy Graham or another of his caliber speak at your university or other of the Christian faith, and probably not even of the Jewish faith.
Yes, I'm sure they have never, ever had a Christian or Jew speak at their university. Ever. (You do get that this is a political leader, not a religious figure, right?)
Yes, Ahmadinejad has said more than a few reprehensible things. Refuse to let him speak, he wins his point. Drown him out, and you are no better than the paid crowds who chant Death to America in Tehran.
Let him speak, let him make his vitriol obvious.
I think that's apples and oranges, though. The Iranian president isn't being invited to set up a permanent branch on campus and recruit people to his ideals.
If there isn't a pro-Iranian organization on campus, one that recruits people to its ideals...I can state with absolute assurance that there was one. We had some of the members over for dinner.
Mike, I am offering wikipedia as a source, not your interpretation of the information which wikipedia offers provides.
My interpretation of the information is a literal interpretation: the power structure in Iran you seem to be referring to is indirectly accountable to elections, and literally qualifies for a definition of democracy you say it doesn't qualify for.
[Bill Myers] Calling Iran a "democracy" is an abuse of the term. Being able to cast a vote alone does not a democracy make. Elections must be free and fair, and the government must protect certain basic liberties and human rights.
Iran's presidential candidates are vetted by a "Council of Guardians" who ensure that the candidates are loyal to the "ideals" of the "Islamic Revolution." Shi'a Islam is the state-sponsored religion. The Iranian goverment employs torture on a scale that makes Guantanamo look tichy by comparison. Iranian women are brutally oppressed, as sanctioned and in some cases even required by Iranian law.
Calling Iran a democracy is no more an abuse of the term than referring to the US as a democracy for its first century and a half or so. Garrison Keillor pointed out that the virtue of the prohibition of alcohol was not that blue-nosed puritans wanted to oppress fun, but that men were privileged at the time to get drunk then go home and beat the crap out of their wives (www.azstarnet.com/sn/related/179016.php). If you want to paint democracy as more virtuous that it really is, that isn't the problem of anyone observing the literal definitions of the word.The analogy to prohibition is irrelevant to this discussion.
It's relevant to misogyny, which I cited [prohibition, that is] in demonstrating misogyny's irrelevance in disqualifying democracy.I have no idea how you got from prohibition to mysogyny, or how mysoguny in the context of the US has anything to do with realities in Iran now.
The reason you have no idea Bill Meyers literally tried to make misogyny relevant to disqualifying iran as a democracy is because you are in the habit of denying what literally takes place in the same threads you make your denials.I'm not exactly clear how you got from prohibition to mysogyny. You have made no meaningful comparison between the phenomena of mysogyny in the US -- of which you have not actually said anything of substance -- and the present phenomena of how the Iranian government and law treats women.
I can only continue to cite the text I bold. An interpretation of the bolded text other than what seems to be the obvious reading needs to be provided -- to nurture your denial of what sems to be its obvious interpretation.
If you haven't just denied that wife-beating as a privilege is rooted in misogyny, I am totally open to hearing an alternate interpretation -- or to accepting even a simple rephrasing -- of what you've said.
Bill of course has not "literally tried to make misogyny relevant to disqualifying iran as a democracy." That's only the inability of your binary mind to process the information.
If Bill wants to deny "Iranian women are brutally oppressed" was part of a list of facts to demonstrate "Calling Iran a 'democracy' is an abuse of the term," that suits me fine. Otherwise, yes, employing the former text to demonstrate the validity of the latter text is "literally [trying] to make misogyny relevant to disqualifying iran as a democracy."
Unless I'm missing something:
enough people Summers worked with simply felt free to publicly say they didn't like him -- there was no other coercion
Yes. You are missing something. As there is no benefit in engaging in conversation with you other than the ignoble feeling of amusement at toying with the obtuse, I feel no great desire to help you out here.
You've just closed access to what you were referring to to not just me, but to anyone whose understanding of what happened to Larry Summers is completely compatible to what I've said, so whatever.
Oh heck, just google "larry Summers" at google news. Rather surprised you missed this; it's been mentioned quite a bit lately.
If you're referring to the canceled invitation to speak at UC-Davis, none of the google results says what subject he was invited to speak as an expert on. If he, and his replacement the governor's chief-of-staff, were invited to speak on why there are so few women on the Harvard science faculty, yes, their invitations should be f.n. canceled -- they simply aren't qualified to speak as experts on areas outside their expertise, just as you would protest a real estate lawyer who authored the executive justification to violate the Geneva Convention from becoming attorney general.
Posted by Mike
To paraphrase CS Lewis, why resort to murder to get what you want when cards will do it for you?
Or, to quote the Great Red Dragon "Why play an ace when a two will do?"
Or to quote Vizzinni "Never get involved in a land war in Asia"
"Micha, I get what you're saying, but he'd also score propaganda points if we stop him from speaking. At least this way there's always the chance something good will come out of it."
Yes. That's why I said that once the invitation was made recinding it would have done only more harm. However, making the offer in the first place accomplishes nothing but giving him the chance to score some propaganda points. It is unlikely that anything good will come of this.
Mike:
"My interpretation of the information is a literal interpretation"
Reading text literaly is enough of a mistake already. Texts are never written and should never be read literaly. However, never in your career on this board have you ever read text literaly. You read bits anmd pieces of the text which serve your interpretation over literaly. Which is why I reciommend again to anybody and everybody to go and read the original text -- in this case Wikipedia's entries on Iranian government and policy.
"I can only continue to cite the text I bold."
You can, but it won't make what you say anymore sensible or convincing. Thev brutal oppression of women by the Iranian government and the phenomenon of individual women being abused by individual men in America (which for some reason you felt necessary to connect to prohibition) are two unrelated phenomena.
Of course he should be allowed to speak.
I think that part of the reason that Northern Ireland has become so entrenched is because the parties don't really listen to one another; they make speeches for the benefit of their own hangers-on, who cheer and reinforce their self-belief. One gets a mob mentality, where the simplest, most reactionary view gets the plaudits, because it resonates with the anger that people feel.
Both sides have been wronged. You can get hung up on that, fold your arms and refuse to talk; but where does that get you? How is the conflict possibly going to end, unless one the parties ceases to exist? Are those the options; generations of pain and strife, or another holocaust?
I have to hope not. The fact that people have, by and large, stopped shooting each other in Northern Ireland, gives me grounds for that hope. I never honestly thought I'd see that day.
"There's no such thing as an instant life-transforming epiphany"
Yes there are.
They're slightly rarer than rocking-horse droppings, but they do occur.
Been there, done that.
Cheers.
Damn... dropped by for one simple comment, then saw:-
Gabh quoth:
"Both sides have been wronged. You can get hung up on that, fold your arms and refuse to talk; but where does that get you? How is the conflict possibly going to end, unless one the parties ceases to exist? Are those the options; generations of pain and strife, or another holocaust?
I have to hope not. The fact that people have, by and large, stopped shooting each other in Northern Ireland, gives me grounds for that hope. I never honestly thought I'd see that day."
Northern Ireland is one that will never sit easy with me.
Two of the guys I was at school with died there, serving as 'peace keepers' when no one over there wanted any peace kept.
The Northern Ireland peace accord, from one perspective was a total sell out with some stomach turning grovelling to a bunch of murdering thugs who should stay banged up until 5 minutes after the apocalypse.
But we do now have a peace, of sorts.
And people are no longer dying there.
So that is a good thing, and I do have to swallow something that I really don't enjoy swallowing...
Gabh is right. At some point, we do all have to grit our teeth and 'get over it', however emotionally impossible that may seem for some of the 'it' things that people have done to one another.
Cheers.
If you're referring to the canceled invitation to speak at UC-Davis, none of the google results says what subject he was invited to speak as an expert on. If he, and his replacement the governor's chief-of-staff, were invited to speak on why there are so few women on the Harvard science faculty, yes, their invitations should be f.n. canceled -- they simply aren't qualified to speak as experts on areas outside their expertise, just as you would protest a real estate lawyer who authored the executive justification to violate the Geneva Convention from becoming attorney general.
Blah blah blah...for anyone interested in the, ahem, facts, and not more speculation from the alternate reality that Mike exists in:
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_6956997?nclick_check=1
Former Harvard University President Lawrence Summers - whose invitation was rescinded last week after pressure by female faculty and staff - was going to tackle the subject of UC competitiveness.
"He had reached out to me and said, as an educator, he was concerned about the ability of UC to compete with private universities such as Harvard and Stanford," said regents chair Richard Blum at a press briefing in Davis on Wednesday.
The truth of the matter is that for those who cower behind political correctness, Larry Summers should never be given any forum to speak. Not because they genuinely fear what he might say, though that would be sad enough, but because they want to send a message to anyone else who might think to cross their orthodoxy. Message being: Hey kid, if the president of Harvard can be brought down and made into a pariah for suggesting that research should be done on biological differences between the sexes and how this could impact the success of women in certain fields, what do you suppose will happen t a mere student who doesn't toe the line?
I also like the quote from one of the people who insisted that Summers be banned, saying that she hoped the whole controversy would just go away now. Of course. It makes it hard to maintain the facade of open minded commitment to freedom of speech when the facts that say otherwise keep sticking around.
The thing I find weirdest is that the neo-cons and the talk radio bums don't realize that Reagan and Nixon would have let him place the wreth at ground zero. Cleary the man is awful, but he's trying to reach out a hand for peace to save his people with honor. Even at the height of the cold war and WWII we were talking to our enemies. If Bush is such a student of history, he would have known that. If people don't want to hear him, don't come, but if he wants to take a higher ground than Bush and Co. he should meet holocaust survivors and solders who were there and hear their stories.
I don't know that he'll be shouted down though. Tickets are hard to come by and were reserved. The reaction may well be determined by how they were allocated.
If they don't get in, I'm sure there will be hundreds of people outside protesting as loudly as they can. This is NYC we're talking about and it does have a very substantial Jewish population.
As for what he really believes, who knows? But, I wouldn't associate having extreme views with being "crazy". He and Chavez would not be able to hold their positions if they we not able to distinguish fantasy from reality.
Reading text literaly is enough of a mistake already. Texts are never written and should never be read literaly.
If you can't be taken at your word, what are you doing here?
However, never in your career on this board have you ever read text literaly. You read bits anmd pieces of the text which serve your interpretation over literaly.
When have I left out text that makes the bits and pieces I refer to incompatible to my interpretation of them?
You can, but it won't make what you say anymore sensible or convincing. Thev brutal oppression of women by the Iranian government and the phenomenon of individual women being abused by individual men in America (which for some reason you felt necessary to connect to prohibition) are two unrelated phenomena.
You all heard it hear: "brutal oppression of women by the Iranian government" and the "women being abused by individual men in America" the American temperence movement was formed to counter do not have misogyny in common. Whaaateeeveeer.
If you're referring to the canceled invitation to speak at UC-Davis, none of the google results says what subject he was invited to speak as an expert on. If he, and his replacement the governor's chief-of-staff, were invited to speak on why there are so few women on the Harvard science faculty, yes, their invitations should be f.n. canceled -- they simply aren't qualified to speak as experts on areas outside their expertise, just as you would protest a real estate lawyer who authored the executive justification to violate the Geneva Convention from becoming attorney general."Former Harvard University President Lawrence Summers - whose invitation was rescinded last week after pressure by female faculty and staff - was going to tackle the subject of UC competitiveness."
The truth of the matter is that for those who cower behind political correctness, Larry Summers should never be given any forum to speak. Not because they genuinely fear what he might say, though that would be sad enough, but because they want to send a message to anyone else who might think to cross their orthodoxy. Message being: Hey kid, if the president of Harvard can be brought down and made into a pariah for suggesting that research should be done on biological differences between the sexes and how this could impact the success of women in certain fields, what do you suppose will happen t a mere student who doesn't toe the line?
So he was given his own discretion in speaking on a topic of his own choosing, and that discretion was withdrawn. That isn't the same as being denied "any forum to speak."
I once had a teacher who dismissed questions of how he graded students by saying that if he liked y'face you got an A, and if he didn't like y'face -- you didn't get an A. Summers's invitation seems to be founded on someone at UC Davis liking his face, and the faculty informed the inviter that Summers's face was in fact severely disliked by them.
You indulge in a lot of hot-winded-wrongness for someone who responds to posts with "blah, blah blah."
I also like the quote from one of the people who insisted that Summers be banned, saying that she hoped the whole controversy would just go away now. Of course. It makes it hard to maintain the facade of open minded commitment to freedom of speech when the facts that say otherwise keep sticking around.
"Banned." Like you and I aren't also "banned" from speaking at UC Davis. Riiight.
"The thing I find weirdest is that the neo-cons and the talk radio bums don't realize that Reagan and Nixon would have let him place the wreth at ground zero. Cleary the man is awful, but he's trying to reach out a hand for peace to save his people with honor. Even at the height of the cold war and WWII we were talking to our enemies."
I find this to be a strange post.
In the first part it refers to the kind of political realism that characterized Nixon, who pretty much put emotion aside and establlished relations with China. Why? Because he thought that the realistic political interests of the US are better served that way, even if he didn't like China's communist government.
But then in the second sentence: "Cleary the man is awful, but he's trying to reach out a hand for peace to save his people with honor." This does not sound very realistic to me.
The third sentence: "Even at the height of the cold war and WWII we were talking to our enemies," seems to return to the realistic point of view. During the cold war communication between the enemies was used as an effective political tool even as the cold war was going on. Bush has acted very foolishly by reducing the tools at his disposal in world politics by neglecting diplomacy. But in order to use diplomacy effectively you have to approach it with a realistic state of mind.
It should also be pointed out that what we have here is not communication between the US and Iran, or negotiations of any sort. What we're talking about is a lecture by the Iranian president in a private university, that's all. From the realistic political point of view it gives Achmadinajad a convenient chance to appear like a great leader and, more importantly, to pass his political/ideological message or messages to two groups of audiences: the first, his home crowds, Iranians, Muslims, other groups who might consider him a leader of the opposition to US imperialism; the second are groups in the west who might be influenced in some way by what he has to say -- this hopefully affecting western policies. In short, the game here is preception or propaganda (which is the same thing but with a negative connotation).
It is also possibly serving the interests of groups in Iran who did not feel that the policy of appearing outright hostile to the US was serving their (mostly economic) interests. Although I'm not sure that's the case.
The last sentence: "if he wants to take a higher ground than Bush and Co. he should meet holocaust survivors and solders who were there and hear their stories," again seems to me to move away from realism.
Achmadinajad may try to steer away from holocaust denial, so when asked about it, he will probably say something like: "all I want is an open historical debate about the holocaust, you are academics and should be willing to accept legitimate criticisms of your history. We (Iran) are of course against any killing of innocent civilians no matter how many..." And if he feels more bold he will add: "...even if only a few hundred thousands Jews were killed in the war, mostly from disease, like everybody else. What we are opposing is the attempts of the Jews to impose their version of history and to use it to extort the Germans."
In doing this he will not gain higher ground the way you expect. He will gain higher ground sincde he will place himself and his cersion of history, his government, his policies, on an equal footing with the US, which is exactly what he is trying to accomplish.
---------------
"Former Harvard University President Lawrence Summers - whose invitation was rescinded last week after pressure by female faculty and staff - was going to tackle the subject of UC competitiveness."
I haven't been folllowing this. It seems to suggest that Columbia does make moral considerations when deciding who the invite to speak. Which means they consider achmadinajad to be acceptable. This might her their PR a little bit. But they'll recover. People who accuse college campuses of being too left leaning usually end up looking like idiots.
"If you can't be taken at your word, what are you doing here?"
It is not my fault you like the basic skill necessary in order to read even the simplest text. You seem to be the only one with this problem on this board.
"When have I left out text that makes the bits and pieces I refer to incompatible to my interpretation of them?"
Too often to count.
"You all heard it hear: "brutal oppression of women by the Iranian government" and the "women being abused by individual men in America" the American temperence movement was formed to counter do not have misogyny in common."
They have mysogyny in common, and not only that. Both happened in the modern era, by human beings on planet earth. Yet they are in fact significantly different phenomena that are not comparable in a way that is relevant to the subject at hand.
Again it is not my fault that you lack the abiliity to comprehend something so simple. Your deabilitating lack of comprehension is not something I can solve. You'll have to take care of it yourself or you'll keep being the guy who doesn't understand what everybody else is saying. Then again, maybe misunderstanding what people say serves some purpose for you. if so, knock yourself out.
P.S.
'Knock yourself out' is an expression in the Engllish language which means, do whatever you want. I of course do not literaly suggest that you knock yourself out. If you already did, than take an ice pack or a steak from the freezer and apply it to the bump on your head.
However, never in your career on this board have you ever read text literaly. You read bits anmd pieces of the text which serve your interpretation over literaly.
When have I left out text that makes the bits and pieces I refer to incompatible to my interpretation of them?Too often to count.
You can always make it a first and cite one example.
If Bill wants to deny "Iranian women are brutally oppressed" was part of a list of facts to demonstrate "Calling Iran a 'democracy' is an abuse of the term," that suits me fine. Otherwise, yes, employing the former text to demonstrate the validity of the latter text is "literally [trying] to make misogyny relevant to disqualifying iran as a democracy."You can [continue to refer to what's been said here], but it won't make what you say anymore sensible or convincing. Thev brutal oppression of women by the Iranian government and the phenomenon of individual women being abused by individual men in America (which for some reason you felt necessary to connect to prohibition) are two unrelated phenomena....
You all heard it hear: "brutal oppression of women by the Iranian government" and the "women being abused by individual men in America" the American [temperance] movement was formed to counter do not have misogyny in common. Whaaateeeveeer.[With no sense of irony]
It is not my fault you like the basic skill necessary in order to read even the simplest text. You seem to be the only one with this problem on this board....
They have mysogyny in common...
Our disagreement is settled. Thank you.
You're welcome.
I am happpy to help you understand things you lack the capacity to understand on your own.
Never be too shy to ask for help.
And you keep feeling free to ignore any sense that would stop you from challenging anything you can't disqualify.
No. I'm sorry. I don't have the time to point out to you every time when you say something wrong. I just had some downtime, but I hope you don't expect me to correct you on a regular basis. No, you'll have to improve your comprehension abilities yourself.
Bye.
So he was given his own discretion in speaking on a topic of his own choosing, and that discretion was withdrawn. That isn't the same as being denied "any forum to speak."
"Banned." Like you and I aren't also "banned" from speaking at UC Davis. Riiight.
So for those keeping track--Mike displayed his ignorance of recent news once by incorrectly assuming it was a years old event. When this was pointed out he displayed his ignorance of the actual current event by coming up with a pretend scenario where he might still be right. When this was proven incorrect he came up with...the above.
It seems clear to pretty much anyone that as far as Larry Summers is concerned, if you raise a taboo subject, apologize and lose your job over it, you might as well forget about ever being allowed to give a speech on any non-related subjects whatsoever at the University of California.
But it's ok because, hey, Mike never gets invited to do it either! Come to think of it, Mike never got asked to write the screenplay to Spartacus either, so I don't know where this idea of a so-called Hollywood Blacklist ever came from!
I'm going to quit while I'm ahead. the worst part about discussing things with Mike..besides the whole, you know, discussing things with Mike part...is the slight possibility that one might end up being the first person to lose an argument to him. THAT would be mildly embarrassing.
Just to clarify, the actual quote from Maureen Stanton, who led the petition drive to disinvite Summers, was "Frankly, we'd like to see the story just die at this point." Well, of course you would! With even some of Summers former opponents at Harvard criticizing her actions it should come as no surprise that she was unavailable for further comment.
While it would be preferable if despicable people would just be less despicable, there's at least some comfort in having them display a bit of shame at their own rotten nature.
Wow.
I go away for a few days, come back to see a thread header for what could be a ripping good debate and find the beginnings of a Mike Hijacking. The dependability of some things in this universe are amazing.
It is somewhat fascinating to see how quickly Mike's issues with his borderline fear, revulsion and/or hatred of the opposite sex and his projection issues have manifested themselves this go round. It's also equally funny and sad to see how, in Mike's alternate reality, several complex political issues all boil down to abusing women. Having a bad month, Mike? Been permanently banned from yet another 1-900 number?
I know that several of you hold out hope that Mike will one day be able to engage in an entire debate here without once displaying his base nature, but you seem to have forgotten his one and only relevant, and possibly only honest, post ever made here. From that post:
Posted by: Mike at May 19, 2005 10:02 PM
But if you're going to be a troll, you have to do it well, like I said in the other thread. Deny it if you want, but there's no kidding anyone we both know it can be great fun.
Troll Boy may be loads of fun to use as a metaphorical punching bag when you're just that bored or in need of a quick dose of cheap humor, but he'll never outgrow the defining characteristics of who he is. It's pointless to go down the Mad Mikey Troll Hole in search of adult or intellectually fulfilling debate. What's the point other then self flagellation or using him as research for a book on the effects of advanced syphilitic mental disorders?
Unless I'm missing something: 1. enough people Summers worked with simply felt free to publicly say they didn't like him -- there was no other coercion [in his firing]So for those keeping track--Mike displayed his ignorance of recent news once by incorrectly assuming it was a years old event. When this was pointed out he displayed his ignorance of the actual current event by coming up with a pretend scenario where he might still be right.
¡Nurse Ratched, no lo dice a mi madre, por favor!
If you're referring to the canceled invitation to speak at UC-Davis, none of the google results says what subject he was invited to speak as an expert on. If he, and his replacement the governor's chief-of-staff, were invited to speak on why there are so few women on the Harvard science faculty, yes, their invitations should be f.n. canceled -- they simply aren't qualified to speak as experts on areas outside their expertise, just as you would protest a real estate lawyer who authored the executive justification to violate the Geneva Convention from becoming attorney general."Former Harvard University President Lawrence Summers - whose invitation was rescinded last week after pressure by female faculty and staff - was going to tackle the subject of UC competitiveness."
The truth of the matter is that for those who cower behind political correctness, Larry Summers should never be given any forum to speak. Not because they genuinely fear what he might say, though that would be sad enough, but because they want to send a message to anyone else who might think to cross their orthodoxy. Message being: Hey kid, if the president of Harvard can be brought down and made into a pariah for suggesting that research should be done on biological differences between the sexes and how this could impact the success of women in certain fields, what do you suppose will happen t a mere student who doesn't toe the line?
So he was given his own discretion in speaking on a topic of his own choosing, and that discretion was withdrawn. That isn't the same as being denied "any forum to speak."
I once had a teacher who dismissed questions of how he graded students by saying that if he liked y'face you got an A, and if he didn't like y'face -- you didn't get an A. Summers's invitation seems to be founded on someone at UC Davis liking his face, and the faculty informed the inviter that Summers's face was in fact severely disliked by them.
You indulge in a lot of hot-winded-wrongness for someone who responds to posts with "blah, blah blah."
When this was proven incorrect he came up with...the above.
Thank you for not disqualifying what I've said.
It seems clear to pretty much anyone that as far as Larry Summers is concerned, if you raise a taboo subject, apologize and lose your job over it, you might as well forget about ever being allowed to give a speech on any non-related subjects whatsoever at the University of California.
But it's ok because, hey, Mike never gets invited to do it either! Come to think of it, Mike never got asked to write the screenplay to Spartacus either, so I don't know where this idea of a so-called Hollywood Blacklist ever came from!
I'm going to quit while I'm ahead. the worst part about discussing things with Mike..besides the whole, you know, discussing things with Mike part...is the slight possibility that one might end up being the first person to lose an argument to him. THAT would be mildly embarrassing.
Has anything in the advent of political correctness been so audacious as to refer to an example of a bias not acted on as evidence of a bias was acted on where outcomes were the same? For the sake of Bill avoiding qualifying as tyrannical, cowardly and smugly self-indulgent, I hope not.
Posted by: Mike at May 19, 2005 10:02 PM
But if you're going to be a troll, you have to do it well, like I said in the other thread. Deny it if you want, but there's no kidding anyone we both know it can be great fun.
Troll Boy may be loads of fun to use as a metaphorical punching bag when you're just that bored or in need of a quick dose of cheap humor, but he'll never outgrow the defining characteristics of who he is. It's pointless to go down the Mad Mikey Troll Hole in search of adult or intellectually fulfilling debate. What's the point other then self flagellation or using him as research for a book on the effects of advanced syphilitic mental disorders?
I can only thank you for not including in your indulgent display of disgust (fed by a 28-month-old post, glad you aren't letting that stop you) a disqualification of anything I say.
"Troll Boy may be loads of fun to use as a metaphorical punching bag when you're just that bored or in need of a quick dose of cheap humor."
Yes, that's it. A little depressing weekend wasted. Not in the mood to do anything constructive. Needed a little bit of cheap humor. But I wouldn't calll Mike a punching bag. He's not a passive victim in this thread. He makes his own choices, repeatedly. And somebody has to stand up to his bullying.
Anyway, there's also a serious discussion going on in this thread. I think part of our problem is that most of the people participating in discussions here are reasonably sensible and civil, and also have a pretty similar outlook on most issues. so Mike sticks out like a sore thumb.
"I'm going to quit while I'm ahead. the worst part about discussing things with Mike..besides the whole, you know, discussing things with Mike part...is the slight possibility that one might end up being the first person to lose an argument to him. THAT would be mildly embarrassing."
The chances are so slim, it's virtually impossible. He lost every argument so far. But it doesn't really matter. In his mind he won all the arguments anyway.
And you keep feeling free to ignore any sense that would stop you from challenging anything you can't disqualify.No. I'm sorry. I don't have the time to point out to you every time when you say something wrong.
Thank you for not denying you can't disqualify what I say.
Quite interesting. I posted about Mike's nature as a troll, his projection issues, his fear, revulsion and/or hatred of women, his probable status as permanently unredeemable and his syphilis induced mental disorder. Mike responded without so much as disqualifying one thing that I asserted. Thus, Mike has tacitly admitted that each assertion is in fact true.
From this we can surmise that Mike is:
A) A troll
B) Making statements that are constantly confused and clouded by his projection issues
C) An unreliable source of honest information about women.
D) Will never attempt to change
and
E) Couldn't change even if he wanted to due to his advanced state of syphilis induced mental degradation
Mike, thank you for not bother to disqualify any of the assertions I've or others have presented about you.
Now, looking at facts A - E, we can then reasonably deduce that nothing that Mike says is of any value. We can also reasonably deduce that Mike cannot say anything that can be taken at face value or safely believed.
Well, Mike, if you can't be taken at your word, what are you doing here? Well, besides being a time wasting little troll who seems addicted to having his intellectual @$$ handed to him on a regular basis?
As to the worthwhile subject...
Most of the points I would make have already been made. Let the nut job speak. Actually seeing the ignorance and hatred that this man embodies live and in the speaking flesh might actually help to sway some of the people who are neutral about him into the camp of believing him to being a nut job.
I know a lot of people who are far to the left of me on the spectrum of ideology. When it comes to our government's villain of the moment, they tend to get skeptical about the press and the press's presentation of that individual. They're always willing to go the extra mile or thirty to give villain of the moment the benefit of the doubt. They can't be/aren't really that bad. That's just the good ol' American Government Propaganda machine revving up to steamroll over some poor third world leader.
Nothing wakes those guys up faster then seeing an actual live speech that's not filtered through the American press. Sometimes that's in the form of a foreign news feed and sometimes it's in the form of seeing the guy live while he visits the U.S. That could happen here. And I doubt that you'll get people who will be swayed to his side so you've only got something to gain here.
I guess I have less faith in people and more people in Ahmadinejad's ability to adapt the message to the audience.
Here is a sample.
Ahmadinejad’s Must Read Claims
Posted by Kamangir on September 17th, 2007
Ahmadinejad is going to New York, for attending a UN meeting. Before the trip, he answered to a handful of questions in the state-run television channel Jam-e Jam [Persian], which targets outside Iran. These are some of his sentences,
1- I have never been involved in a fight…I am not either a dictator or a violent person.
2- In Iran, there is no chance of dictatorship, because everything belongs to the people and people decide about everything….Americans have killed many people in Latin America, Africa and Iraq and must be tried for that.
3- It is sad when an Iraqi or a [American] soldier is killed in Iraq. Many of these soldiers don’t know where they are. They are poor and have become a soldier for its money. The 15 Birtish soldiers we captured a while ago didn’t know which part of the world they were in. [American] occupiers [of Iraq] send us letters. They think I am the president of Iraq. Many of them don’t even know where they are.
5- American students send me letters. They don’t have enough information and some of them think I am a Palestinian. When I was in New York, whenever the car slowed down, American youth would fist their hands [to show their support].
6- Europeans are outraged because of their governments’ support for Israel. They must hold referendums to decide about the Zionist regime.
7- We should give students scarfs with the peaceful nuclear energy symbol on them, for them to wear at school.
8- Americans always talk about human rights. They have no idea what human rights is. Wiretapping happens everyday in the US. A couple cannot speak together there. Do we do these things in Iran?
Well, Mike, if you can't be taken at your word, what are you doing here?
What am I insisting anyone take my word on, authority figure who arbitrarily trumps other peoples' accounts of their own experiences with his own? Don't strawman me, bro.
What am I insisting anyone take my word on, authority figure who arbitrarily trumps other peoples' accounts of their own experiences with his own? Don't strawman me, bro.
Yes.
Thank you for, yet again, not bothering to disqualify or deny any of the assertions I or others have presented about you here or on other threads. Thank you for admitting that you are a woman hating/fearing, mentally degraded Troll Boy who makes worthless comments that can't be taken as of value.
Have a nice life. Oh, I'm sorry... Too late.
Well, Mike, if you can't be taken at your word, what are you doing here?
What am I insisting anyone take my word on, authority figure who arbitrarily trumps other peoples' accounts of their own experiences with his own? Don't strawman me, bro.Yes.
Thank you for, yet again, not bothering to disqualify or deny any of the assertions I or others have presented about you here or on other threads. Thank you for admitting that you are a woman hating/fearing, mentally degraded Troll Boy who makes worthless comments that can't be taken as of value.
Have a nice life. Oh, I'm sorry... Too late.
I made no such admissions.
Thank you for conveniently going back on your word to not strawman me in the same post you agreed to not strawman me. You're so willing to indulge in what I simply observe you doing, it's a wonder anything I say antagonizes you. Maybe something about being the violin on which I play makes you all hot and bothered.
Mike,
Thank you for not denying that you confirmed to deny your earlier denial of the conformation of your admissions while continuing to fail to confirm your denial to deny what you so obviously failed to deny to begin with.
Pathetic.
Oh, and thank you for not denying I'm not asking anyone to take my word on anything.
Newsarama called. They want their political slap fight back! ;-)
Posted by: Jerry Chandler at September 22, 2007 09:41 PM
"Mike,
Thank you for not denying that you confirmed to deny your earlier denial of the conformation of your admissions while continuing to fail to confirm your denial to deny what you so obviously failed to deny to begin with."
Posted by: Mike at September 22, 2007 09:43 PM
"Oh, and thank you for not denying I'm not asking anyone to take my word on anything."
Well, so long as we all agree. (undeniably)
Peter, the point became moot back in the 90s with the Anita Hill / Clarence Thomas case, when the fiscal Left finally conceded the Free Speech argument to the social Right and instead of arguing against censorship argued for their OWN categories of censorship.
In arguing against "hate speech" they were arguing against speech. Once that train left the station the consequences were inevitable and predictable.
Look how many people signed up to be on "No Call" lists because the effort of hanging up on telemarketers, or simply skipping calls that ID telemarketers on Caller ID was too "inconvenient".
Mere speech offends so your speech must be squelched, at work, at school, on tv, on film, in music, in video games, in print--including comic books.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Too bad there isn't some ... code ... everyone could agree to.
And we pause for a moment of silence to remember Marcel Marceau...
Mike,
Thank you for not denying that you confirmed to deny your earlier denial of the conformation of your admissions while continuing to fail to confirm your denial to deny what you so obviously failed to deny to begin with.
Pathetic.
Oh, and thank you for not denying I'm not asking anyone to take my word on anything.
Well, so long as we all agree. (undeniably)
Well, if you're going to agree I'm not asking anyone to take my word on anything, what then is there to get snippy at me about? Jerry's inability to cite anything here that invited his disgust qualifies it as simple projection (re: 6.b.).
From an AP article this morning:
""The United States is a big and important country with a population of 300 million. Due to certain issues, the American people in the past years have been denied correct and clear information about global developments and are eager to hear different opinions," Ahmadinejad was quoted by IRNA as saying."
I can only laugh.
Hmmm... rummage, rummage... ah! Issue 23, Supergirl. Steel. Not Very Nice Fellow speaking at Stanhope University. Lotsa debate about whether he should be allowed to speak or not...
thought this seemed familiar...
I say let him speak, however I would also encourage anyone thinking of going to hear his drivel to stay home instead. While free speech is a noble idea, there is nothing noble about wasting one's time listening to drivel that is as coherent as the ramblings of a lunatic on a street corner with a sign saying "the end is nigh." I think it would be a victory for western civilization were the president of Columbia to introduce Ahmadinejad to an empty lecture hall and then walk out leaving the president of Iran completely alone: the ultimate snub for any demagogue.
What frightens me is the thought that Columbia might be letting him speak, not from the desire to allow someone the freedom to express unpopular ideas, but rather because the management of the university is so out of touch with reality that it believes those ideas have merit in and of themselves.
"there is nothing noble about wasting one's time listening to drivel that is as coherent as the ramblings of a lunatic on a street corner with a sign saying "the end is nigh."
No.
He will not sound like a lunatic, and what he says is both coherent (as much as it is wrong) and will be taylored to fit his audience. It's possible that because he is not really familiar with America and because he is so certain of his own ideaas, that he will overshoot and say things that will not have the desired effect on his audience.(back in August 1990 Saddam started to talk about Indians in an interview to ABC).
Should you listen to it? Certainly, but critically. I assume most of you (except one) are capable of listening to his material with a critical ear. Unfortunatly his words will haver traction with some audiences in the west as they always do. But that's the price of freedom of speech.
Whenever I hear the phrase "price of freedom of speech" I always think of the exchange from the pilot episode of "West Wing," when a religious lobbyist confronts President Bartlett.
"Mr. President, may I ask you a question?"
"Of course."
"Don't you think that a child being able to buy pornography on a street corner for five dollars is too high a price to pay for freedom of speech?"
"No."
"Really?"
"I do, however, think that five dollars is too high a price to pay for pornography."
PAD
"encourage anyone thinking of going to hear his drivel to stay home instead"
While I can see where this line of thinking comes from, this guy has been painted as Nutjob Number 3 in Current Events:The Movie. You know, "axis of evil," and all that. Now, I'm not saying he isn't completely coocoo for Cocoa Puffs, but if he's willing to present himself, I think it's a mistake to NOT hear him out. Best condition coming out of it--maybe some base to build a diplomatic relationship. Worst--yeah, he really is a history-rearranging nutjob with too many vowels in his name. But then at least we'd know, for a fact, not just because it's what we're told. My six year old is already at the inquisitive, why-is-it-like-this stage. He wants to know why. Seems a lot of people grew out of that and are willing to just take whatever they're given without getting more information.
He will not sound like a lunatic, and what he says is both coherent (as much as it is wrong) and will be taylored to fit his audience. It's possible that because he is not really familiar with America and because he is so certain of his own ideaas, that he will overshoot and say things that will not have the desired effect on his audience....
Unfortunatly his words will haver traction with some audiences in the west as they always do. But that's the price of freedom of speech.
For his agenda of bolstering anti-Judiasm/holocaust-denial in the US, sure. But bolstering anti-Judiasm/holocaust-denial in the US, and simply bolstering the resolve to dedicate one's self to anti-Judiasm/holocaust-denial, are not interchangeable agendas.
If you're going to measure truth by consensus, by treating those two agendas as interchangeable for example, then you are giving Iran your consent to believe whatever their majority agrees is the truth. Consenting to the individual's or Iran's devotion to anti-Judiasm/holocaust-denial is not a "price of freedom of speech." Instead, obstructing his influence is a goal that cannot be accomplished without the freedom of speech.
Sean, it is important that you do not think of him as a nutjob. I hope you reject his opinions, but they are not his alone, and they should be taken seriously.
I doubt diplomatic relationship can be the result of his visit to Columbia University -- unless it declares independence. He is also visiting the UN, which is a place of diplomacy.
I should qualify what I said by adding that the Oslo accords between Israel and the PLO started as meetings between private academics. But then again, these accords ended in failure, so maybe it is not a good idea to let academics play in diplomacy no matter how well meaning they are.
----------------------
Mike, I sincerely have no idea what you're talking about.
"If you're going to measure truth by consensus"
The nature of truth was not tthe subject of my post in any way.
"you are giving Iran your consent to believe whatever their majority agrees is the truth"
Iran is a sovereign nation, what they believe has little to do with my consent. All I can do as a Jew, as an Israeli and as a human being is to ensure that the memory of the Holocaust endures, and that the Jewish people endure.
"Consenting to the individual's or Iran's devotion to anti-Judiasm/holocaust-denial is not a "price of freedom of speech."
The price of freedom of speech is that I must tolerate Columbia's decision to give Ahmedinajad a podium from which to promote his message. It is a price I believe it is right to pay.
"Instead, obstructing his influence is a goal that cannot be accomplished without the freedom of speech."
Not so. Countries like Iran use restritions on freedom of speech to obstruct undesirable influences. However most western countries are unwilling to use these methods. Rightly so, I believe.
It should also be pointed out that Holocaust denial is only a small aspect of Ahmedinajad's message or agenda. He only adopted it because he believes that by unndermining the memory of the holocaust he can undermine Israel (and possibly also the power he believe Jews have in the US, but I'm not certain of that), and because it increased his personal prestige. It is likely that he will seek to avoid this subject when addressing an American audience, unless his miscalculates and assumes that you will be receptive to holocaust denial, as he did when he suggested it in a letter to the German chancellor. He thoought that she would be happy to entertain the idea that the holocaust was a Jewish conspiracy.
Similarly, in his letter to Bush he adapted his message because he knew that Bush was a religious conservative, although I think he overshot here too:
"Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems.
We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point -- that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: “Do you not want to join them?”
Mr. President,
Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the
Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.
Vasalam Ala Man Ataba’al hoda
[Meaning: And peace to those who obey the guidance]
Mahmood Ahmadi-Nejad
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Source: - www.president.ir/eng/ahmadinejad/cronicnews/1385/02/19/index-e.htm#b3"
I haven't been able to see the actual speech yet but if this transcript of the president of Columbia accurately describes his opening remarks, he deserves many kudos:
Mr. Bollinger asked Mr. Ahmadinejad: "Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator, and so I ask you, and so I ask you, why have women members of the Bahai faith, homosexuals and so many of our academic colleagues become targets of persecution in your country?"
He asked whether Mr. Ahmadinejad was using a nuclear confrontation with the West to distract from his incompetent leadership at home. He also asked to be allowed to lead a delegation of scholars to Iran to speak freely, as Mr. Ahmadinejad can do today.
He confronted Mr. Ahmadinejad over his description of the Holocaust as "a fabricated legend," calling him either "brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated." He called Columbia a world center of Jewish studies that since the 1930s has provided a home for Jewish refugees. He called the Holocaust "the most documented event in human history."
"Today I feel all the weight of the modern civil