I was looking on the Columbia website, but couldn't see it - is there going to be a live feed of this? Or something I can watch later?
Maybe he really stands for sympathy for the 9/11 victims. As an Iranian government official, why wouldn't he? Iran had nothing to do with 9/11 and supported the U.S. immediately afterwards. There were pro-American demonstrations in Iran then.
Photo ops are a form of communication, the line between communication and manipulation tends to depend on whether you agree with what is being communicated.
The point of a photo-op, in contrast, is to circumvent the exchange of ideas
I don't get this at all. If Ahmedinejad lays a wreath at the WTC site, what ideas are being obscured?
I have trouble gauging the degree to which we, in a reality-based world, should fear and loathe Ahmadinejad. I mean, yeah, there's some worry about nukes, but Iran wasn't involved in 9/11 and is, in fact, politically on a different side than bin Laden.
3:
Don't you get it, Apo? Ahmedinejad is a holocaust denier. Do you know what that means? It means he believes 9/11 never happened. How can we let him mock our tragedy?
I have often wondered if Ahmadinejad is to Iranian radical Islam what Bush is to radical fundamentalist Christians. He's probably not actually as religiously conservative as they are, but he needs their support, so he says outrageous things. The problem is if, like Bush, he feels the need to act on those outrageous things, or use that support to do other, even more politically cynical, violent things. They'll never be able to negotiate in good faith because, in order to keep the more rabid of their base in line, they have to do all negotiations with a sneer and a spit.
This is not my area of expertise. I'm going to go teach poetry now.
Iran wasn't involved in 9/11 and is, in fact, politically on a different side than bin Laden
Right. The notion that we can't "provide [him] with a photo op" because it will allow him to "circumvent the exchange of ideas and bypass saying what you really stand for" seems completely disconnected from the situation at hand. I'm pretty confident that Ahmedinejad honestly believes that 3000 people dying in a terrorist attack constitutes a tragedy.
Or rather, that the recoiling response seems to boil down to, "Oh no you don't. You are not allowed to express sympathy and human emotions. You are our enemy and must remain so."
6: In terms of Iranian politics, Ahmadinejad is almost done. In Iran, they have this weird/terrorist idea of limited executive authority, and Mr. A is bumping his head against its ceiling.
How about: "Sure Mahmoud. You're also invited to the Holocaust Museum in DC!"?
"Limited executive authority" is a rather polite way of describing a theocratic oligarchy, though.
Museums are for educating people, correct?
There were pro-American demonstrations in Iran then.
This is my recollection as well. I'm fine with barring him from Ground Zero, but it's a mistake (I think, and not one Becks is making) to make use of a justification that implies an inaccurate relationship between 9/11 and the Iranian people.
Using similar reasoning: I think that they should bar all Christians from the Wailing Wall because the Roman Empire that destroyed the Second Temple later became Christian.
One of the things that makes me despair even more than my job prospects is this peculiar doublethink that allows people to think that when the president of Iran, who doesn't actually control anything explosive, says inflammatory things, he gives us a reason for war, but when our president call Iran, Iraq and North Korea an axis of evil, he's only funnin' slightly less than McCain singing the bomb-iran song.
Excellent exchange on 60 mins (from crooksandliars.com)
But what has to be the kicker of the interview is when Pelley asks Ahmadinejad (who has been called a madman, a terrorist supporter and evil by Bush, mind you) what he likes about President Bush.
video_wmv Download (355) | Play (456) QT later... video also available at CBS site (h/t Scarce)
Ahmadinejad responds by asking what do Americans like about Bush. Pelley's answer? Bush is a religious man.
"As an American citizen tell me what trait do you admire?" the president asked Pelley.
"Well Mr. Bush is without question a very religious man for example, as you are," Pelley replied.
"What religion, please tell me, tells you as a follower of that religion to occupy another country and kill its people, please tell me, does Christianity tell its followers to do that?" Ahmadinejad asked.
Cala--I just sent you an e-mail.
I think he feels it was a tragedy, too. And I also agree that the Bush administration has done a lot to inflate his position (and evilness) above his actual power (see Labs's post below). But I also that that Ahmadinejad, in particular, is slick at playing the image game and could really use the coverage of that event to his advantage.
I could totally see it playing like this: he gets his picture laying a wreath at Ground Zero, he goes and says something inflammatory at Columbia, people go apeshit, and he goes back home and says "I don't understand! They were so mean to me! After I even laid a wreath at Ground Zero!" with the Middle Eastern media showing the photos of him laying the wreath and clips of a speech he made when he got home about being mistreated but not covering whatever crazy thing he said at Columbia.
He's like that girl in high school who is always saying bad shit about you behind your back but being super-polite and smiling when you meet in the hall and then playing the victim card and whining to all of your friends that she can't understand why you don't like her. You have to shut that shit down.
I think 8 gets it right. I remember vaguely that there was a time when pretty much the entire world was shocked by and sympathetic about 9/11. It would be nice if we could view the wreath thing that way instead of as some kind of weird sacrilege, especially given that the only reason to object to A. doing it as opposed to any other world leader with whom we have issues is that he's some kinda A-rab, and you know, they're all behind the terrists.
You have to shut that shit down.
You have to stop watching teen comedies.
I read 19 as contradicting the "why do we fear?" message of the post. Provides an answer—one I disagree with.
19: That seems like a fair appraisal. Let's give him bulimia!
I think apo gets it basically right. The man in the street thinking is that Ahmadinejad is totally and inherently evil and therefore his very proximity to "Ground Zero" (that term used to be used for nuclear bomb impact sites) is sacrilegious. And I'm sure the administration is thinking that they're not going to give him a chance to seem like a human being.
And I'm sure the administration is thinking that they're not going to give him a chance to seem like a human being.
That's fine with me. I just don't want them to further demonize him or Iran.
Correction to 7 above:
I'm pretty confident that Ahmedinejad honestly believes that 3000 people dying in a terrorist attack perpetrated by a Sunni group that seems to be be interested in promoting similar acts against Shiites in his own nation and its immediate neighbors constitutes a tragedy.
That said, if he visits, his photo op would be in solidarity with the victims. It he's denied a visit, the photo op will be righteous indignation at the United States government. Let him go.
I think the idea is that you don't get to run around saying "Death to America" and then pretend to care about dead Americans.
I guess I don't know if it would be pretend or not, but I agree with apo.
19: I don't think that's right. Ahmadinejad isn't trying to ratchet up tensions for a war on this visit; quite the opposite, in fact, if you read the CBS interview and his various recent statements about the prospects for war. He's slick, sure, but he's aiming his appeal at the American public, and given that his goal right now is to prevent a war, I'm happy to wish him luck. More photo ops, please.
I have to go to a meeting now. Fight amongst yourselves, infidels.
I think the idea is that you don't get to run around saying "Death to America" and then pretend to care about dead Americans.
Except that Ahmadinejad isn't saying "Death to America."
Except that Ahmadinejad isn't saying "Death to America."
"Death to America", "Death to Israel", same difference.
It takes George Bush's America to get people to stand up for a repressive theocratic motherfucker like Ahmadinejad. Some days hating the world is the only way to go.
"Death to America", "Death to Israel", same difference.
What an unfortunate situation that those are considered to be the same statements.
What an unfortunate situation that those are considered to be the same statements
I was going to ask, "May we put that to a vote?"
"Death to America", "Death to Israel", same difference.
Insert Juan Cole here.
36: So did I, but nevertheless, he didn't really say "Death to Israel" either.
Sadly Katherine, at this time of year I can't make that assumption.
Ahmadinejad is no more anti-Semitic than the people who had control over British foreign policy during the first World War.
38: I think it was actually "Food coma to Israel."
24: I also don't get how the name of the site became Ground Zero and therefore continue to refer to it as "the World Trade Center site" or "the site of the former World Trade Center," but I wasn't living in New York at the time of the attacks and worry that I'm insensitive to the feelings of those who were.
I didnt 31 to be MattF's statement, but our govt's statement. (After all, isnt MattF a smart UVa guy? We never say stupid stuff.)
42: I wasn't in NY at the time of the attacks but I was born there & remain at least a wannabe New Yorker....I hate the sound of "Ground Zero", & usually call it the World Trade Center site. It's one of those terms that's so common that I can't reasonably get annoyed at anyone for using, but personally, I never call it that.
A friend of my neocon friend once stopped me when I referred to "9/11". He said "What day did that happen?" I said "September 11th". He said "Why don't you refer to it by the date it happened? I find that disrespectful." I said "You're just trying to find excuses to disagree with me, aren't you?"
isnt MattF a smart UVa guy?
No, I'm a dropout (from a different school).
45: You're more polite than me.
No, I'm a dropout (from a different school).
My mistake. Irregardless (gotta give w-lfs-n something), I understood MattF to be sarcastic.
I genuinely don't understand the quaking fear over Ahmadinejad's interview at Columbia. When did America become so weak, so insecure, that we mistrust our capacity to converse with potentially hostile world leaders?
Oh sure, let him come and talk to us, all suave and clever and preternaturally charismatic and wearin' a tie and a suit just like a real person.
That's what we did with Nicolae Carpathia, and look how that worked out.
I genuinely don't understand the quaking fear over Ahmadinejad's interview at Columbia. When did America become so weak, so insecure, that we mistrust our capacity to converse with potentially hostile world leaders?
This is tone deaf. No one is in quaking fear. The issue is whether and to what extent we want to give unpleasant regimes photo ops, or invite their official representatives to speak in prestigious settings. When the Shah of Iran spoke in the US, he was met widely with protests. If my memory serves, Doonesbury even ran a couple of strips on it. For some, the human rights record of the Shah's regime served as justification for denying him publicity and honor. Of course, his regime was an American ally, so no doubt we should apply higher standards.
As someone who was working in Northern Virginia on 9/11, it's kind of remarkable to me that the Pentagon victims have dropped out of the equation so thoroughly. Part of that is the simple equation of 184 vs. 3000, but I don't think it all is.
A friend of my neocon friend once stopped me when I referred to "9/11". He said "What day did that happen?" I said "September 11th". He said "Why don't you refer to it by the date it happened? I find that disrespectful." I said "You're just trying to find excuses to disagree with me, aren't you?"
Maybe it's just 'cause it's Monday, but I can't follow this at all. The objection was that you used the number rather than saying "September"?
i am quaking
i live right near Columbia and I know I won't be able to resist his velvety tones and dark eyes when he starts in with the devil-talk
baa, we let George Bush speak from the White House.
17 makes me livid -- yet another example of how journalists work slavishly to burnish the reputation of a moral monster as a religious man. Pelley should be fired.
50: No is saying there's a problem with other people also going to Ground Zero and protesting the (factual) bad things that Ahmadinejad has done. The problem is that not letting him go places attributes far more power and legitimacy (since people keep complaining about Columbia granting him that) to him than just saying, "Fuck it, we don't care where he goes or what dumbass thing he says there. We're strong, we can take it."
Actually, that's exactly what I'm saying.
When the Shah of Iran spoke in the US, he was met widely with protests.
And Ahmedinejad will be as well. Hey look! Dueling photo ops!
Well Mr. Bush is without question a very religious man
Actually, there's plenty of question about that. Pelley then goes on to say there's no question that Iran is arming the Iraqi insurgents, an assertion for which I've seen precisely zero evidence aside from the assertions of an administration that has shown itself to be completely and utterly undeserving of blind trust.
Your liberal media at its finest.
I've never heard of this Pelley person before. Why did they get him to do the interview?
Taken from Ezra Klein's blog:
AHMADEINEJAD: I think Mr. Bush, if he wants his party to win the next election, there are cheaper ways and ways to go about this. I can very well give him a few ideas so that the people vote for him. He should respect the American people. They should not bug the telephone conversations of their citizens. They should not kill the sons and daughters of the American nation. They should not squander the taxpayers' money and give them to weapons companies. And also help the people, the victims of Katrina. People will vote for them if they do these things....I'm a Muslim. I cannot tell a lie. I am supposed to tell the truth. What I'm saying is that President Bush's conduct in Iraq is wrong. And his wrong conduct is behind his party losing the previous elections. This is very clear. The American people are very much dismayed with the behavior and the conduct of the present administration. They are not dismayed with Iran. In fact, the two nations are very close to one another.
I like this platform a lot better than Osama bin Laden's plans for a 3% flat tax and a total ban on smoking.
It's very badly done. He's hostile & reciting conservative talking points, but in a way he's also serving up fat pitches. The President of Columbia ought to be able to do a better job.
Pelley served as CBS News' chief White House correspondent from 1997 to 1999 covering the impeachment of President Clinton among other stories. He joined 60 Minutes II at its inception and moved to 60 Minutes after the demise of 60 Minutes II in 2004.
Starting with the Persian Gulf crisis of 1990 and the 1991 invasion of Iraq, Pelley has reported extensively from many war zones, including the former Yugoslavia and post-Taliban Afghanistan. In 2003, Pelley and a 60 Minutes team opted out of the embed system and covered the invasion of Iraq independently from the initial strike to the fall of Baghdad. He has returned to Iraq several times to report on the insurgency. In 2006 and 2007 he filed reports on the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan.
Pelley's reporting on child slavery in India earned him the Investigative Reporters and Editors award in 1999. In addition, he has won five Emmys, an Edward R. Murrow Award, and the Writers Guild of America Award. Pelley serves on the board of the School of Mass Communications at Texas Tech University.
The issue is whether and to what extent we want to give unpleasant regimes photo ops, or invite their official representatives to speak in prestigious settings
No, the issue is whether and to what extent we want to let the American people decide freely what regimes are "unpleasant", and exactly how "unpleasant" they are, based on hearing an uncensored case from all concerned rather than just media and government propaganda. When even people around here buy the frame it makes me despair.
Headline in NY Post this morning: THE EVIL HAS LANDED. Subhead: HITLER To Speak At Columbia.
I watched World Trade Center last night, ecause I could find litle else. It sucked. Oliver Stone really sucks. I finally decided Stone is just really stupid. Should have watched Faith of Our Fathers instead. Eastwood is not stupid.
Maggie Gyllenhall did the best work in WTC.
I have nothing interesting to say about Ahmadinejad. Whatever, whatever. Not that the above is interesting.
Pelley then goes on to say there's no question that Iran is arming the Iraqi insurgents, an assertion for which I've seen precisely zero evidence aside from the assertions of an administration that has shown itself to be completely and utterly undeserving of blind trust.
Your liberal media at its finest.
Our media is horrible. That liberal PR machine NPR is constantly repeating White House talking points as if they were the gospel.
Journalism is apparently dead.
Journalism is apparently dead.
Wait Wait Don't Tell Me, which I'm usually indifferent to, was good this weekend.
49 is funny, and yet it's sad that I get it.
That's something that amazes me. The administration was completely wrong about their main case for war against Iraq, and yet it hasn't penetrated the puny mammalian forebrains of our journalists that maybe the administration is not completely credible. At this point OJ has a better record for honesty.
"...penetrated the puny mammalian forebrains of our journalists"
Of course, it has. What has penetrated the brains of journalists & the beltway is just how dangerous crazy Bush & the Right Wing are. I think Bush is crazy enough to take a fireplace poker to Helen Thomas during a press conference, after which we would be in full civil war, because his 25% 30 million fans would back him up. They moved Helen to the back of the room to protect the country. The Beltway must be very careful.
Ahmadinejad is not that crazy.
You know, I haven't heard a single Columbia student unhappy about the invitation. Even the College Republicans are happy: they get to heckle Ahmadinejad in person and then protest out front among the movers and shakers.
What's really unfortunate about this hullaballoo is that it reinforces some of the sense of siege that a lot of students and faculty at C.U. already feel, with the result of making them hostile and defensive towards the general American public (as represented by their most extreme media spokespeople). I guess that's part of the Right's strategy, in the end: wedge issues, always the wedge issues.
the issue is whether and to what extent we want to let the American people decide freely what regimes are "unpleasant", and exactly how "unpleasant" they are, based on hearing an uncensored case from all concerned rather than just media and government propaganda.
I do not believe this is the issue. True, some fools and cynics (Fred Thompson) have suggested denying a visa to Ahmadinejad. The issue in most people's minds, however, is whether Columbia was wise to honor him with an invitation. He doesn't lack for opportunities to get his message out. No one is advocating censorship unless "censored" means "not being invited to speak at prestigious US universities." I suspect 99% of those decrying Columbia's decision would encourage newspapers to print transcripts of his speeches. Free speech isn't the correct lens here.
we let George Bush speak from the White House.
Two wrongs don't make a right, ogged.
I don't see a problem with any organization denying him the chance to have a photo op on their property. Except the US government.
I really think the original sin in this manner is Michael Bloomberg's for either telling Ray Kelly not to approve Ahmadinejad's request to go to the World Trade Center site or for not having enough control of his subordinates to prevent Kelly from taking this action without his approval. Bollinger's invitation was, as I understand the timeline, a response to denying him permission to go to the WTC.
Folks at Columbia are, I suspect, a little less overwhelmed by the "honor" it is to speak there than are a lot of the outsiders commenting upon it.
The issue in most people's minds, however, is whether Columbia was wise to honor him with an invitation.
Why do they care? Don't most of the complainers disdain the America-hating Ivy universities?
Look, Jackmormon, you're either on the side of America's top educational institutions and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or you're on the side of Bill O'Reilly. Make your choice.
82 would look better expressed as "LXXVI was I."
LXXXIII would look better expressed as "LXXXII would look better expressed as "LXXVI was I."".
Sorry, slol. Your talk was just another flyer in the hallways for most of the students, but I'm sure that someone will be very impressed by that CV line-item.
just another flyer in the hallways
You know just how to wound me.
All the flyers are honored! And honorable!
Don't most of the complainers disdain the America-hating Ivy universities?
Well, speaking for myself, I like the Ivies. I would be disappointed if Yale extended an invitation to Islam Karimov or Robert Mugabe. I don't mean to suggest that Ahmadinejad is "as bad" as these guys, but in my view he's bad enough that one shouldn't collaborate in his photo ops and positive PR.
Folks at Columbia are, I suspect, a little less overwhelmed by the "honor" it is to speak there than are a lot of the outsiders commenting upon it.
Maybe. No doubt there are all sorts of gradations here, and it's not like he's being invited to be the commencement speaker. I am open to the argument that this is not much of an honor or PR coup, and thus we shouldn't care if Columbia grants it to some disagreeable person. Would you agree that if it were an honor, it would be a bad idea?
In any event, the point stands that Ezra's comments show either that a) he doesn't understand the concern people have, or b) he does understand and is willing to mischaracterize it.
I don't think it's much of an honor (all kinds of people talk at that university, seriously), and if it is to be considered a PR coup, it would only be because of the gigantic media attention the OUTRAGE!! has brought to bear on the lecture.
The issue is whether and to what extent we want to give unpleasant regimes photo ops
Going back, this can't be quite right. I at first thought it might just be posturing, and I can't say what people's opinions would be if blogs and tabloid papers hadn't made a point of blowing up the story, but in eavesdropping on people I've heard them express outrage at the idea of Ahmadinejad being allowed at the WTC and saying they'd be there to protest if he were (I think some of them are confused and blame the General Assembly traffic jams entirely on him, but not all of them are). They're surely not outraged by the granting of photo ops.
I think it would be interesting to hear what he says. That's a good enough reason to have him as a speaker. Better than having Random Senator X who has no particular thoughts on any subject and will make sure to not saying anything with which anyone will disagree. I don't see it as an honor. I don't think Columbia should give him an honor.
If it is an "honor", it's because it's at a prestigious school. But that isn't really true because it's not like there were various schools competing to have him do this and we can tell he is a big name because Columbia snagged him. It's just an isolated event.
Slol, I just remembered that I too have given lectures at Columbia. Where are my goddamn accolades and demonstrations?
Would you agree that if it were an honor, it would be a bad idea?
Well, I definitely don't think President Bush should give him the Presidential Medal of Freedom, if that's what you mean. I don't think that's likely, but never say "Never," I guess.
For whatever reason, CU has this tradition of getting big world leaders to speak. I'm not sure whether NYU and CUNY and Pace and the other NY universities aren't trying or whether they are unable to draw the big names or whether they're more "patriotic" in their invitation selections or what. I'm sure the public universities are more circumspect in what kind of outrage they provoke, but, well, I've never heard of the kind of to-do over at NYU, while there seems to be something every year at CU.
Baa: Would it bother you if Vladimir Putin were invited to speak at Columbia?
Where are my goddamn accolades and demonstrations?
All hail JM, Columbia lecturer par excellence!
Excellent. Now I need somebody to denounce me. Baa?
93 seconded. If it were at Harvard, I'd show up. "Having something interesting to say" seems as good a reason to invite a guest speaker as any other, and better than most..
Something rubs me the wrong way about calling this "providing them with a photo-op." I think the WTC site is a common cultural heritage. We may criticize GWB for going there to whip up emotional support for further invasion and death, but we wouldn't physically prevent him, even if we could. In the same way, a leftist can make a speech there contrasting 9/11's lessons with GWB's failures. Why should we prevent a foreigner from doing the same thing just because we've decided he's hypocritical?
Basically, I think reducing Ahmadinejad's visit to a "photo-op" is a delegitimizing rhetorical tactic. It's symbolism, and symbolism is not separate from the exchange of ideas. How is an inflammatory photograph different from an inflammatory speech?
Basically, what wd said in 56. If we care about the free exchange of ideas as an ideal (note that I am not making a free speech argument here), we should let him go where he wants and do what he wants, and have the courage to confront him on both the rhetorical and the symbolic level. Getting all flustered about him "using" the WTC site for his own nefarious purposes is overly defensive.
I just remembered that I too have given lectures at Columbia. Where are my goddamn accolades and demonstrations?
JM sent me a copy, and it's damn good.
I would be disappointed if Yale extended an invitation to Islam Karimov or Robert Mugabe.
A neat trick, but it won't work here. Here, we recognize that an invitation to speak at a prestigious American location may confer some legitimacy upon an unelected and brutal dictator that it would not confer upon somebody who actually won an election.
In any event, the point stands that Ezra's comments show either that a) he doesn't understand the concern people have, or b) he does understand and is willing to mischaracterize it.
I'm not entirely convinced. I get the point about the honoring Ahmadinejad, and I agree that honoring him doesn't seem appropriate. But why, then, also object to him visiting "ground zero"? Do people also view that as an honor? That's harder for me to believe.
Would you agree that if it were an honor
Giving him an honorary doctorate would be an honor. Giving him an opportunity to speak just seems like part of a major university's mission to advance the exchange of ideas.
It takes George Bush's America to get people to stand up for a repressive theocratic motherfucker like Ahmadinejad.
Hey, sauce for the American goose, sauce for the Iranian gander.
I'm happy to be outraged at Ahmadinejad's visit, if someone can explain to me why the following is less of a threat to Israel, peace and Middle Eastern stability:
(a) The Saudi regime
Bonus points if someone can convince me that Ahmadinejad has ever responded to American threats with anything like the rhetoric that we've directed at him.
Double bonus points if someone can explain why I should be afraid of his repeated efforts to open a dialogue with the United States and prevent war. Included in this answer should be a condemnation of Columbia University for having the tenacity to foster this dialogue.
Triple bonus points if anyone can explain to me how we get out of Iraq and leave behind something less than a failed state without massive levels of assistance from Iran.
I don't think that Mormon apologists should be allowed to speak at Columbia.
People say "Well, at least she's not married to her uncle"
Sure, she isn't. Not yet.
Giving him an honorary doctorate would be an honor. Giving him an opportunity to speak just seems like part of a major university's mission to advance the exchange of ideas.
Exactly. People should not confuse giving someone an opportunity to speak with uncritical endorsement of the speaker, and if they are so confused, they should try attending a talk at a university sometime.
Oh, just a logistical issue, but: given that we've given him a diplomatic visa, what's to stop him from going wherever the fuck he wants? Couldn't he go to "Ground Zero" and do a little dance if he wanted to?
Very good, John! Now, fit that on a picket sign and follow me around please.
Following on 95:
Thinking about this a little bit, I think your formulation--Would you agree that if it were an honor, it would be a bad idea?--bespeaks a certain confusion from the objectors. It seems to me that there are two ways an invitation to speak at Columbia might be an honor. First, per slol, it might be recognition that you have achieved sufficient prominence in your field that people have to account for you. But circumstances have done that for Ahmenijhad (spelling?), not Columbia. Or, if you'd rather, the Administration and the people objecting to the speech have said he and what he says are important. Second, you might honor someone by saying that they're worthy of emulation. That's clearly not the way most Americans feel about Ahmeijhad. Perhaps, in a parallel situation in the 60s--if Ho had been invited to speak--there could be some confusion about this point. People on the left, and particularly at universities, were taking shots at America. (It was probably necessary, if unfortunate.) But that's just not the case today. The belief otherwise is a holdover from some thirty to forty years ago.
So, sure, if we were to understand that inviting Ahmenijhad to speak suggested that we thought him worthy of emulation, then we ought not invite him. But it doesn't, and I'm not sure why it would be so interpreted in this situation.
I hate to be the one to go off-topic, but, this is cool, especially if you haven't heard of it: kiva.org
Giving him an honorary doctorate would be an honor. Giving him an opportunity to speak just seems like part of a major university's mission to advance the exchange of ideas.
At some point, people became afraid of differing ideas. So sad.
Couldn't he go to "Ground Zero" and do a little dance if he wanted to?
No. The whole disaster area is still fenced off from the public as a dangerous toxic-waste site/construction zone.
I agree, except for the issue of the wreath at Ground Zero. I think it's one thing to give a world leader with views your country opposes a platform for their ideas and another to provide them with a photo-op.
Gee, all I can say is, I'm glad Ogged wasn't advising the Polish government before this visit.
The whole point of symbolic gestures such as wreath-layings is that they open up a space for signaling good intentions without jeopardizing delicate diplomatic negotiations or sparking a domestic backlash. Brandt's "Kniefall" was exactly such a gesture--in a city that still bore the wounds of a devastation orders of magnitude worse than 9/11.
You can, without too much difficulty, trace a causal line back from the end of the Cold War to that moment in Warsaw.
109: You know, I suspect that the idea that having a speaker = endorsing the speaker's views is of a piece with the idea that liberal professors brainwash their students, and even the pro-testing NCLB stuff for k-12 education.
A lot of people think that education is pure content delivery, and that the student's job is to listen passively to the instructor (or textbook) and then just regurgitate. The idea that the point might be more what one *does* with the content than the content itself really doesn't seem to register.
"I think it's one thing to give a world leader with views your country opposes a platform for their ideas and another to provide them with a photo-op."
If the standard is to prevent unpopular leaders from manipulating wreath-laying photo-ops, we should consider whether Bush should be allowed to visit (or even invoke) Ground Zero or 911. After all, Bush is the king of manipulated photo-ops and unpopular/dangerous/disasterous views. Ahmadinejad is no better/worse- he's just not from here.
Then again, if we allowed Ahmadinejad to lay a wreath, he might declare moral outrage and lead an attack against a country that was not responsible, i.e. Belgium. It's a slippery slope.
People should not confuse giving someone an opportunity to speak with uncritical endorsement of the speaker, and if they are so confused, they should try attending a talk at a university sometime.
To certain extent, though, people *are* going to do just this, and no, they are not going to even think about attending a talk at a U (even if they're aware that this is an option). Columbia, if it hasn't already, would probably be well served by taking pains to make it clear that this isn't an honor. (their purpose is education, after all!)
You know, I suspect that the idea that having a speaker = endorsing the speaker's views is of a piece with the idea that liberal professors brainwash their students
God, I hate this idea. This idea is pretty much the reason my parents' friends think I'm awful for going to graduate school. And I get the undergrads whose well-meaning pastors have told them to beware of the evil liberal academy, especially those feminists. They're so relieved to find that I don't spend my philosophy of religion lectures making fun of religious people. I'd like to have a word with their pastors.
Of course, it is traditional for Persians to bring you flowers and then poison your tea.
I'm kinda surprised nobody has mentioned Reagan's wreath-laying trip to Bitburg yet.
Columbia, if it hasn't already, would probably be well served by taking pains to make it clear that this isn't an honor.
Dude, it has tried to make this point over and over.
Columbia, if it hasn't already, would probably be well served by taking pains to make it clear that this isn't an honor. (their purpose is education, after all!)
It looks like the President of Columbia's introduction to the speech was made up entirely of criticisms and confrontational questions about things that he said he didn't expect to get answers to from a despot, so there's no danger of any confusion here.
Here's the NYTimes liveblogging the Columbia speech. The president appears to be going way, way overboard in his pain-taking and, not for the first time today, gave Ahmadinejad a good opening to appeal for sympathy.
124: It's the reverse situation, though, no?
"Her babies are her cousins!
She wears magic underwear!"
There's a paucity of anti-Mormon slurs, apparently. UNLV students were reduced to saying "Fuck you, Mormons!"
Or maybe the internet has been purged. I suspect dark forces again.
103: I don't see how that distinction can support the weight you put on it, and if it could objections about how free the elections in Iran are would still apply. Also, I will go on record as saying I'd like to see Robert Mugabe talk somewhere where for, example, Tim Burke (assuming he can speak with the clarity he writes but in a slightly punchier manner) could question him.
123: Seen them at the same place at the same time.
add to my list of lifes little annoyances: Exactly the same people who claim that academics are shutting out certain voices because they are controversial are the ones who get incensed and jump up and down when a controversial voice is offered space in academic discussion.
I know these people have no actual interest in education or truth, but still, it jars.
Burke would look cute being tasered.
My 1L year at NYU people protested having Bob Packwood speak on the grounds that doing so provided support for sexual harassment. That was also a mistake.
It's the reverse situation, though, no?
Exactly. The only similarity is that both incidents involved a wreath.
In the biggest screwup of Mike Deaver's career (apart from getting sent to jail), the presidential advance team failed to note that Waffen SS were buried in Bitburg. Reagan's handlers wanted to call the whole thing off, but Helmut Kohl leaned very, very hard on Reagan to go through with it, and prevailed.
When a few classmates razzed Rebekah Rice about her Mormon upbringing with questions such as, "Do you have 10 moms?" she shot back: "That's so gay."
Those three words landed the high school freshman in the principal's office and resulted in a lawsuit that raises this question: When do playground insults used every day all over America cross the line into hate speech that must be stamped out?
In my opinion, somebody who's won an election (a scrupulously fair one or not) is in a much better position to contribute to the exchange of ideas than somebody who led a military coup.
136: Why? You either matter or you don't, I would think.
And the guy from Mars is sure to feel he's got the answer: everybody should speak; nobody should lay a wreath.
125, 126: there might be certain disadvantages to my choice to rely solely on Unfogged as my news source.
People, try to be considerate. Ogged is sensitive about this subject; his family was in line for a courtesanship under the Shah.
from the NYTime liveblog:
for many Columbia students, this is likely to be the most exciting event of the school year.
That's a lot of young people not having sex.
It's the reverse situation, though, no?
Not even neatly reversed; utterly different situations. It was just the first thing that sprung to my mind when the words "president" and "wreath" landed in the same sentence.
The range of responses here is hard to write a single response to, but I'll try.
Neil, at 103, implies (I think) that it would be bad for Columbia to invite Mugabe, but it's not to invite A-jad, because Mugabe is a brutal dictator, and A-jad is elected. I think the general point is right. There's a sliding scale between how bad someone is and to what extent you want to legitimize them or participate in the construction of their public persona. I am less sure "being elected" is the relevant special sauce.
A bunch of people say, in various ways, 'it's not honoring someone to invite them.' I agree there are matters of degree here -- he's not being invited to give the commencement address, after all. Nonetheless, I think it is basically a mistake to think inviting someone has no social reality other than proclaiming "here is a person whose views you can reject or accept."
Why is the unfoggedbot offline? Has he been decommissioned?
for many Columbia students, this is likely to be the most exciting event of the school year.
Undergrads almost never come to events like this----not unless there's a giant media circus with congressmen and clowns, that is. What is certainly the most "exciting" part for the students is the collective fucking hysteria focussed on their tiny, tiny campus.
I suppose that what I mean is, by virtue of being an elected leader, Ahmadinejad has already won more credibility on the exchange-of-ideas front than Columbia has the ability to confer upon him. This isn't so likely to be true of a Mugabe or, say, a Unabomber.
People mentioned in this thread, ranked in the order of how interesting I would find a speech by them:
1) The Unabomber
2) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
3) Helmut Kohl
4) Vladimir Putin
5) Islam Karimov
6) Ronald Reagan
7) Robert Mugabe
8) George W. Bush
I don't see why a university shouldn't invite Mugabe to an on-campus Q and A. It would be very interesting to hear about he rationalises what he's done to that country. Something (okay, many things) went terribly, terribly awry in the decolonisation of Zimbabwe, and since some of the theories of re-nationalisation of natural resources, etc. are still in vogue in parts of academia, I think a critical discussion with Mugabe could be really enlightening.
HOWEVER. Because Mugabe is an irrational and brutal dictator, I suspect he'd be very unwilling to attend such a Q and A. Did the Shah actually submit to questions from the Iranian protestors when he took refuge in the US? (He was probably too ill towards the end, but that's not my point...)
Just to make things completely clear, between the speech and the Q+A session Bollinger is going to recite this soliloquy.
143--
i believe i expressed baa's view over at delong's site, when the question was "does uc davis's invitation to larry summers--merely an invitation to speak, not to receive any kind of degree--constitute an honor of such a kind that members of the uc davis community are justified in protesting the invitation?"
brad said the uc davis faculty were demonstrating ignorance of a what a university is, i.e. a place where people are free to speak their minds. i thought that was a little too simple, and said so. sure, everyone's free to speak somewhere or another, but an invitation to speak at a university does carry some institutional judgement.
someone named 'michael mcintyre' said so even better--more clearly, and with knowledge of the relevant law. brad, as is sometimes his wont, used his editorial privilege to delete most of mcintyre's post. it's a shame that one of brad's most admirable qualities, namely his loyalty to friends, should sometimes be expressed in this way.
anyhow--i did not think it wrong of the uc davis people to protest summers' invitation. i would not think it wrong of people at columbia to protest ahmadinejad's invitation. i think both invitations constitute symbolic acts on the part of the universities involved--not expressions of approval for the speaker's message, but some sort of endorsement of their worthiness to be heard, to be given a special platform.
I have the feeling that at this point Mugabe might be incapable of a coherent statement of opinion. He still ranks below Karimov and Putin. And behind Larry Summers as well.
I would love to see hilzoy explain inflation to Mugabe.
I think 146 ("by virtue of being an elected leader, Ahmadinejad has already won more credibility on the exchange-of-ideas front than Columbia has the ability to confer upon him") is a solid answer to 143 ("I think it is basically a mistake to think inviting someone has no social reality other than proclaiming "here is a person whose views you can reject or accept.")
Inviting someone to speak at a university isn't endorsing their views, but it is identifying them as someone whose views are of significance to the relevant debate -- someone who isn't properly to be marginalized. For an intellectual, that may be an endorsement on some level (that is, a claim that the ideas of the speaker are at the least important, even if wrong) but for a high level elected official of a state at the center of many salient political issues it's not an endorsement, just a reflection of reality. It's worthwhile knowing the President of Iran's views not because they're interesting in the abstract, but because they're interesting as insight into the sort of thing Iran is likely to do next.
you want to legitimize them
I don't understand what you mean by "legitimize." He is the President of Iran. If you accept that such means his words speak for Iran and its intentions, then he's an important person by virtue of the fact that various groups (though I guess it's mostly neocons and southern conservatives at this point) want war with Iran. If you do not trust those groups to make the decision about the necessity of war with Iran--and I've got to assume that no sane person does--then you want to get more information about Iran and the person who is representative of it. What are the other best options for doing so?
And to respond to 143, to the extent that Ahmameenivegimen is a significant person to whom it might be interesting to listen, he's a significant person with or without Columbia's platform. It is not as though A. was going to stop giving speeches and fade into the background but for Columbia's invitation.
This time, at least, we actually get to hear the whole speech in a forum where people can respond.
And in the audience there will be a boatload of experts on things like, oh, the history of global democratisation, comparative post-colonial nationalism, social movements in the Middle East, etc. And of course a largish number of native Farsi speakers.
okay, but never mind the bollocks:
over at ct, bérubé in comments has posted his version of yeats' second coming as modified to describe a penn state football game.
it's huge. it's beyond canonical. it's beyond deuterocanonical. it's not merely transcanonical, it's transmetaprosanacanonical.
also, becks you slut, you did all this just to get a friendly word from kevin drum.
It was just the first thing that sprung to my mind when the words "president" and "wreath" landed in the same sentence.
Substitute "Chancellor" for "President" and you get the story I referenced in 116. In many ways, Willy Brandt's visit to the memorial to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was even more conflict-laden than Ahmedinejad's visit: The people Brandt represented had laid waste to Poland barely 30 years before; the largest party in West Germany pointedly refused to recognize the post-war western border of Poland (the Oder-Neisse line); and the two nations found themselves on opposite sides of a Cold War that periodically threatened to go hot, sometimes only a few hundred km from Polish territory.
On the same day that Brandt fell to his knees in Warsaw, he signed a treaty that more or less committed the Federal Republic to recognizing Poland's international boundaries. Maybe one Pole in 1,000 can tell you about the treaty (the diplomatically more momentous event), but any Pole who was alive at the time remembers the sign of humanity and remorse* from the German chancellor. Moreover, that signal was heard all over the Eastern bloc, and contributed to the thawing of tensions that ultimately took place across the Iron Curtain.
*Brandt was an opponent of the Nazis who spent the war years in exile, so it's not as if he had any personal guilt in the matter.
Coming in late, but Iran is the target of a lying scare campaign and I'm glad Columbia let him speak. Ahmadinejad may or may not be a bad guy but he and his nation do not deserve to be the target of nuclear weapons. I complete support Ahmadinejad's PR campaign, because the PR campaign he's fighting is toxic.
The counter example I had in mind of "locally popular, politically significant, but unworthy of invitation" was Milosovic. But this is likely a case where exchanges of examples and counter-examples aren't useful. The main point is that there's a difference between seeking to understand person X's views, and inviting him to campus. There are a whole cast of politically important people I don't think Columbia should invite to speak. And no doubt people will disagree on them because they disagree on whether they should be marginalized/denied an honor/given a platform. But the disagreement properly should be about whether they deserve to be marginalized/denied an honor/given a platform, not whether we fear them, or want to censor them. Ezra was stealing bases by suggesting the concerns were the former ones.
In this, I think Kid Bitzer is *exactly* right. While I don't agree with the UC critics about the substance of what Summers stands stands for, if we stipulate that Larry Summers stands for sexism in hiring then it would be a fine idea to deny him a special platform.
One sweet day, Ms. Lizard Breath will be wrong, and I will mock her, and further mock her, until she is embarrassed to show her face in public. Until that day, her presence pretty much obviates mine. 153, seconded.
163--
hm. not sure i said what you said, but if it's exactly right, then i must have.
if it's not, then, well, i can defend myself, i guess, i don't need me to stick up for me.
This Bitzer motherfucker is a moving target. Who said what when? I don't have the program handy.
Kid's relevant comment is 150, I believe.
154- Good point. He's long been legitimized by our government with the constant attention given to his. He's a leading policy-maker of a country our war administration is constantly threatening. I'd like to hear what he has to say before 'we' decide to blow them up. Hopefully, people will ask him relevant questions.
LB and SCMT have it right. What's this about honoring and legitimizing? Not only is he the President of a fairly large country, but it happens to be a country that the US in considering going to war with, and he happens to be someone portrayed (by even the liberal media) as a madman. It seems broken to me that it's not a matter of course that he's invited to speak all over the country. Are we just supposed to by the administration's propaganda?
I understand, baa, that at a certain level of abstraction and given certain conditions, we can draw a line where we say "no, we shouldn't invite this loathesome character," but this is nowhere near that.
169: This was your going-in position, no? Or have you moved on the wreath-laying thing?
Becks has never been able to dunk a basketball.
Hey ogged,
We'll have to agree to disagree.
1)I see a big space of opportunity between buying the administration's propaganda and inviting him to speak. I entirely endorse having A-jad's positions and statements well-publicized and directly accessible.
2) The suitability of inviting him to speak has, in my mind, something to do with whether you believe Iran is currently funding activities that aim at the death of American troops. Because this is a charged topic, I was trying to avoid discussing it in this forum. If I did not believe that was happening, I would feel better about the invitation.
A lot of the Iraqis who have come and gone to the US were killing American troops at one point or another. Our golden boy Chalabi was in Iran at one point, doing God knows what (mostly staying out of jail, I think). We just came to a short-lived agreement with a (short-lived) sheikh who had only just recently quit killing American troops. That's diplomacy for you.
While it's possible that the Iranians are directly or indirectly responsible for killing American troops in Iran, it's also possible that they aren't. The boys who cry wolf are saying that they are, but that particular car-alarm has been buzzing constantly for the last 20-30 years and most of us routinely tune it out. At some point the constant lies start to reduce your credibility.
The claim that Iranians are the major factor in the violence is certainly a lie.
Perhaps having Mr. A. speak at Columbia will do something to reduce enthusiasm for the war which the Bush team seems to be planning in order to recoup their failures so far. If so, GOOD!
still not sure what i think about all this.
but while this from lb is surely true:
"It's worthwhile knowing the President of Iran's views not because they're interesting in the abstract, but because they're interesting as insight into the sort of thing Iran is likely to do next."
and this from scmt is surely true:
"He is the President of Iran. ...he's an important person by virtue of the fact that various groups ...want war with Iran"
i'm not sure either of those are reasons to invite him to speak at a university, rather than reasons to, e.g., encourage the posting of his speeches on the web, interviewing him on tv, etc.
sure, he's important and topical, so learn about what he has to say, learn about his views, etc. etc.
but that's general advice; we still need something more to turn it into the particular conclusion "so we should invite him to columbia".
(which is not to say that i have any argument to the conclusion 'so we should *not* invite him to columbia').
I'm not sure it's an important difference, but the conclusion you're actually looking for is, I think, "He's within the range of people who Lee Bollinger (or the dean of the relevant school there) might reasonably exercise their discretion to invite to speak."
There's a couple of asterisks there (though I understand wanting to avoid it). The first is that the Bush administration hasn't yet presented any solid evidence of it beyond assertion. The second is, if the evidence does exist, whether the office of the president has anything to do with it (or do you feel that no Iranian citizen should be invited to speak?).
The suitability of inviting him to speak has, in my mind, something to do with whether you believe Iran is currently funding activities that aim at the death of American troops.
I got news for you - George W. Bush comes off much worse by this standard than Ahmadinejad, and unlike Ahmadinejad, Bush has spent his country's treasure and lives on measures that promote bin Laden, too. Yet we still allow him to speak at Columbia.
Becks has never been able to dunk a basketball.
Wrong. The difference is that Becks can still dunk a basketball.
you believe Iran is currently funding activities that aim at the death of American troops.
If I believed that, then, yeah, I'd like to know what he has to say on that. But, on its face, funding an effort to kill occupiers of your next-door neighbor might be good policy for them.
There's a couple of asterisks there Understood and agreed. And of course, even stipulating the claim, the consequence isn't that no Iranian citizen should be allowed to speak.
though I understand wanting to avoid it
Thanks. I'll continue to beg off.
159: That's awesome. Almost makes me miss the alma mater.
Becks ≠ Ogged
[K.R. Bangs hand against forehead.]
We'll have to agree to disagree.
No! We'll have to fight to the death! But I'm not picky about time/place/etc.
Becks is heavily armed, Ogged is not.
We'll have to fight to the death!
That's the spirit. Or are you just saying that because another game started by Grossman makes the prospect of death a sweet relief? I assume the significance of uniform colors has been explained to him.
We'll have to fight to the death!
How many rounds would that take?
Probably more than one of those sissy 20-gauge round Yglesias uses.
Confession: I have played way more games of Sissyfight 2000 than I care to admit. I lost most of them, but I also confess that it's fun to relentlessly abuse strangers while pretending that it's just part of the game. Some of us should play sometime.
Probably more than one of those sissy 20-gauge round Yglesias uses
Those looked like 12 gauges to me (or maybe 16, it was hard to tell because of the angle). With a slug or buckshot, that shit will blow a hole through you six inches across, if it doesn't cut your torso in half.
Aw, hell, only 15 people online? There used to be hundreds!
You motherfuckers are no fun at all.
Isn't it hard to jam 12 gauge ammo into those little 20 gauge guns?
Real men don't need to use shotguns. They hurl the pellets by hand.
Iran has realized the dream of the Republican Party and without so much as a constitutional amendment.
That takes a really special kind of denial.
That's awesome. I guess I shouldn't say that my mom has said the same thing to me.
Let me be clear. Iran is not gay. It never has been gay.
Tangentially to 200, a long-ago friend of mine from Teheran told me about a city/region of Iran that had the reputation of being home to lots of cuckolds (presumably this was a corrollary to having a reputation for sexually autonomous women, but whatever).
Does this ring a bell to you, Ogged? He knew a whole bunch of jokes on this theme, some of them even funny.
Great clip. To be fair, this form of denial is ubiquitous: I have heard the same thing from Koreans and from Africans. Apparently, there is something totally gay-inducing in the water here.
Does this ring a bell to you, Ogged?
It does, indeed. The people of Rasht are singled out for this abuse, if I recall correctly.
The new official term for "sexually autonomous woman" around here is cabrona. B. has approved this term, unless she changed her mind when I called her "high-maintenance".
If Ogged were back home he'd either be not-gay or hanging from some lamppost. Note that this statement requires no presumption about his closeted state.
Why, it's because those shameful hussies can just flee to Azerbaijan if they get into trouble, according to the map.
If Ogged were back home he'd either be not-gay or hanging from some lamppost.
Couldn't he be both?
You're such an optimist, Ned. Also, a.b --> a v b.
Wikipedia sez...
The people of Rasht also played a major role in the Constitutional Revolution of Iran. Rasht is well and interesting for tourism
Nothing on cuckoldry, though.
I see from the map that it's on the Caspian Sea. This would be consistent with some of the other stories my friend told me, e.g. how you can drink from a bottle of whiskey on the beach by burying it in the sand and drinking through a straw while pretending to wrestle; how you can use a match to eliminate the odor of alcohol from an empty bottle to evade the morals police, etc.
Isn't the "pretending to wrestle" part more closely related to the sodomy-related program activities on the beach?
173:baa whether you believe Iran is currently funding activities that aim at the death of American troops
I did site searches without finding the posts, but I am fairly sure that Marc Lynch and/or Eric Martin recently agreed there was sufficient credible evidence.
I am at the point that I do not fault Iran for such activities, and very near to spproving of them. For the legal record, I have not or would not materially assist Iran in the killing of Americans.
I suppose the saintly position is to deplore all killing and don sackcloth & ashes, but the fact is that Americans, probably by at least a factor, kill more than are themselves killed, and so the path to less dead people probably involves less Americans. In Iraq, and the world, for withdrawal from Iraq will not end the killing by Americans, directly and indirectly. We will just do by air and by proxy. Anybody watching Somalia?
But for the most part, I am rooting for Iran & its people all the way. Better us than them.
A less amusing explanation for the cuckoldry jokes might be all the invasions of that part of Iran.
Isn't the "pretending to wrestle" part more closely related to the sodomy-related program activities on the beach?
Reminds me of a typically endearing story involving said Iranian friend. He was having trouble getting it on with his GF because of her inexperience and, shall we say, mismatched dimensions. I told him he need to get some lubricant. This was a novel concept to him, so I told him to come with me to the pharmacy. He was a little shy about asking the pharmacist for such an item, so I did it for him while he sheephishly hung out in the background. As we walked out the door, I gave it to him and said "You realize she thinks this is for *us*". It took him about three full seconds for that to sink in, whereupon he became so embarassed he earnestly suggested that I go back and explain that it was for him and his girl.
198 is special and weird: I gave an identical speech (in English, of course) as part of my Model U.N. in high school. I was representing Iran at the WHO, and tasked with addressing the AIDS crisis. My speech was well received.
211 continued, to pre-empt misunderstandings
"Less Americans" can mean:
A forced diaspora and resettlement of American citizens to 100 nations of the world
An invasion and occupation, with loss of self-governance and self-determination, by some alliance of moral nations. Followed by partition.
A complete change of American character. Obama will soften the hearts of the 101st fighting keyboarders?
And other implausibilities. But we'll just keep on killing.
That's a great story sit-com episode, KR.
"Less Americans"
Fewer Americans, you fucking grammar troll.
That's a great sit-com episode, KR
I'm now imagining the "Very Special Episode" where, on the last leg of his escape across the border to Turkey, the guy whom he has paid to smuggle him across the border gives him kilo of heroin and says "Give that to the man who meets you on the other side; if you lose it, he will shoot you."
Amazingly enough, he had some great laugh lines concerning that part of his tale.
I'm starting to think you're talking about my cousin. Did this all happen in Chicago?
No, wrong continent. But it sounded like the last-second heroin stuffing is SOP, so probably not that uncommon.
218:I am 5'4" how do you know I didn't mean smaller or slimmer Americans? Huh? Huh? Munchkins like me are no threat to world peace & freedom.
How tall is Ahmadinejad anyway?
(How come Wiki does have his vital statistics?)
That's a great sit-com episode, KR.
You mean like 'go in there and tell her I'm not a homo....not that there's anything wrong with that.'
Munchkins like me are no threat to world peace & freedom
Munchkins like you have been known to command armies, or entire empires, and are often to be found in fighter planes.
Don't you call them "gremlins" in fighter planes?
Bollinger: I am only a professor, who is also a university president...
I can't be the only one who finds this amusing?
Bollinger was my undergrad president. (Big whoop, heebie.)
Some gigantically annoying motorcade just drove by: about seventeen four-wheeled vehicles---including many NYPD cars and two or three ambulances---four or five motorcycles, and a helicopter or two. I assume that means it was Bush hisself.
Did anyone get a look at Ahmadinejad's hands? I wasn't watching the broadcast.
lieberman? lieberman says ahmadinejad has literal blood on his hands?
pol pot calling pa kettle black.
There are some specific things Bollinger said that were sloppy & seemed like overcompensating (can you be dictator of a country when you're not the most powerful person), but in general I like the approach of inviting controversial speaker/world leader X but feeling perfectly free to tell him off. Would like to see it applied to people who deserve it as much as Ahmadinejad, but aren't quite such easy targets (as far as US press coverage & public opinion goes).
pol pot calling pa kettle black.
Ironically, Ahmadinejad is extremely analogous to Pol Pot in some way or other.
but in general I like the approach of inviting controversial speaker/world leader X but feeling perfectly free to tell him off.
I'm not so crazy about this approach. When just about everyone in the room can be expected to side with person who is doing the telling off, it smacks of some sort of exercise in group catharsis or something. I don't mean I'd rather Bollinger had treated him to fulsome flattery or anything, but I think a coldly civil introduction with a few pointed jabs would have better served the purpose. If Ahmadinejad is so beyond the pale that he cannot be treated in the usual manner that characterizes such events, then perhaps baa is right that he shouldn't have been invited at all.
I like the approach of inviting controversial speaker/world leader X but feeling perfectly free to tell him off
Invites another invidious comparison between Ahmadinejad and our own President.
GWB won't even allow dissident members of his own party to contradict him; can you imagine him sitting down in front of a hostile audience in a foreign country and taking that kind of tongue-lashing?
it smacks of some sort of exercise in group catharsis or something
I totally agree with that. The whole rhetorical situation is just weird.
I'm coming from an "if I hear John Yoo described as 'thoughtful' one more time I'm going to puke" place, & from memories of discussion w/ U.S. administration officials like this one. There was a certain amount of invective & podium-banging I could have done without, but I was completely cool with mentioning, by name, specific Columbia alumni under house arrest.
A propos of John Yoo, I'll dig another story out of the wayback machine.
Shortly after Bush 43 took power (i.e. well before John Yoo was famous/notorious), I ran into someone whose acquaintance with Yoo goes back many years.
I made some comment to the effect of "ole' John sure has done well for himself, getting a senior appointment in the new administration and all".
The guy's face suddenly got all serious, and he said to me: "You know that John has gone over to the dark side, don't you?...I'm really concerned that he is going to end up doing real damage to the Republic."
Yes, I realize that sounds like contrived movie dialogue, but that's exactly what he said, and he was right.
I read three full Wiki pages on Ahmadinejad and am having trouble hating on him. Ok, Holocaust denier, but he looks smart, a good politician, and has seemingly helped the poor in his own country.
So much better than the Bush.
But this is comment is really about Oliver Stone making a movie of Ahmadinejad's life? WTF?
I've read three full Wiki pages on Ahmadinejad, and guess what? He's a prick. Imagine that: a man wholly outside U.S. influence, free of any imperialist taint, turns out to be a total douchebag! Alert the alternatice media!
When did America become so weak, so insecure, that we mistrust our capacity to converse with potentially hostile world leaders?
When it became a nation of childish, easily led scaredycats. Ahmadinejad is Hitler? He isn't even Salazar.
Way to go America, embarassing yourself once again for the eyes of the world.
@236 Katherine: "There was a certain amount of invective & podium-banging I could have done without, but I was completely cool with mentioning, by name, specific Columbia alumni under house arrest."
Not only could I have done without that stuff, but it had the effect of taking away from the pointed human rights confrontation. I'm with Invisible Adjunct: coldly civil is the way to go.
Bollinger's display was embarrassing and unprofessional, and actually created sympathy for Ahmadinejad. It embarrassed enough people in the audience that A. got applause for his mild reproof -- and rightly so.
