First, a metaphor: inside the tall campus gates, thousands of students and faculty listened. Outside the gates hundreds of people, their faces streaming sweat, shouted at each other. “Send Hitler Home,” battled numerous flapping Iranian flags — and a smattering of ultra-orthodox Jews who support Ahmadinejad.
Second, a philosophy. John Stuart Mill triumphed today: as he wrote in his essay, On Liberty:
Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion, is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right.
This ideology was so firmly embraced today by Columbia one might have thought the 19th century British philosopher was the founding genius of U.S. higher education. So much for Plato and Aristotle, the Bible, Rousseau and the rest of the businessman’s philosophical rivals.
Third, some history. The brutal pictures of public executions that papered the campus today underlined one aspect of the cultural difference between Iran and the U.S. Public executions, however, were celebrated in New York City into the 19th century, and in other parts of the U.S. until much later. In 1824, for example, about 50,000 people, one third of the city, turned out to see a murderer be marched through the city with a rope around his neck, his coffin on a gurney in front of him, and hanged in Union Square. The last public execution in the United States was in 1936 in Kentucky. The last hanging here was in 1994 in Walla Walla Washington. That is not so long ago. Similarly, Ahmadinejad made himself look ridiculous today when he claimed that homosexuality does not exist in Iran … but until relatively recently, I suspect most Americans agreed with the thrust of his contention — being gay is a matter for others. In short, Iran’s President appears to be behind the curve of history. (The best coverage of this event, in my opinion, was from the student blog here The Bwog; the NYT also did a nice job here).
Fourth, manners. The insults Columbia President Bollinger dished out to his invited World Leaders Forum guest — “Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator,” “You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated,” and “I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions,” — did not elevate the discussion. The professor should have focused on his more substantive points.
Finally, religion. Ahmadinejad began his speech in a way no University leader was likely to do: with thanks to God and an extended mini-sermon complete with observations about Adam. Now that the shouting is done and the crowds have gone home, this seems to me to be perhaps the most striking lesson of the day.
Not only can’t I wait for him to come back, but I think he should be on Jay Leno.
Does anyone share my view that the introductory remarks of Columbia’s President, Lee C. Bollinger, were in poor taste? The NYT reports that among other things, he called Pres. Ahmadinejad a “petty and cruel dictator” to his face. Aside from the hyperbole–Ahmadinejad doesn’t run the Iranian government by a long shot and is thus hardly a dictator himself–isn’t this just rudeness to a guest?
<
p>
I’m sure some will applaud Bollinger for “bravely speaking truth to power,” or something like that. I’m sorry, but I think this was declasse and inappropriate.
<
p>
TedF
If Bollinger wants to criticize him, then he is well within his rights — it is hardly “inappropriate”. Ahmadinejad had an opportunity to come to the United States, peacefully, and freely talk to an audience.
<
p>
I doubt Mr. Ahmadinejad would be so kind as to return the favor to persons/groups he disfavors.
I think Bollinger stepped over the line from “vigorous disagreement,” to, “blunt rudeness.” It was his decision in significant measure to invite the chap. Having done that, he should have limited his remarks to more substantive matters, in my opinion, and left the bitch slapping rhetoric to the people outside the gates.
Is calling Ahmadinejad a “petty and cruel dictator” an exaggeration?
The guy invited Ahmadinejad to give an address. Presumably he wants to hear what he has to say. Hurling epithets like this just seemed unconstructive to me. Bollinger could discredit the guy in a far more effective manner by concentrating on more substantive matters.
I thought the invitation came from the faculty of the Foreign Affairs Dept. It is apparent that a refusal to veto an invitation from a faculty group may not be an endorsement from te President.
<
p>
And, it appears my ‘silver lining’ theory, as posted on another thread, actually came to pass.
…and I’m still undecided.
<
p>
But what about honesty? What could have discrediting Ahmadinejad through more substantive points accomplished above and beyond what was accomplished by calling a spade a spade? Can the terms used by the professor realistically be termed insults if they are accurate. If someone habitually steals, is it an insult to call that person a thief? If someone is routinely and intentionally dishonest for his or her own gain, is it an insult to call that person a liar?
<
p>
I think there is room in appropriate discourse for the strong language demonstrated by the professor and I think he had a lot more to loose by playing some linguistic gymnastics where he simultaneously rebuked Ahmadinejad and used what you might term a substantive discreditation. Perhaps he was playing safe given the existing outrage of inviting Ahmadinejad?
<
p>
I’ll say this – saying “you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator” and “You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated” to a man that can send Hezbollah to execute your entire family is a once and a lifetime opportunity and I don’t think my ego would let that chance slip by.
<
p>
Also, he might be one of the few people in the world with such an opportunity to render to Ahmadinejad such a rebuke face to face. It’s not happening in Iran. I doubt it happens in diplomatic contexts. I remember Chavez calling Bush el diablo, but what are the chances of someone talking Columbia-level trash to Ahmadinejad at the UN?
<
p>
Much to unpack here.
As I mentioned here, it’s an exaggeration to say that Ahmadinejad is dictator of anything. He’s the dictator’s waterboy, and were I the president of Columbia, that is the point I would have made — “you will hear the stances of the regime as told by somebody with little power to alter them. “
<
p>
Is he petty and cruel? Probably — you don’t make it far in politics anywhere without being petty and cruel. You could say the same for at least half the presidential field in this country.
… I don’t think so. The Mullahs run Iran, not this ‘dictator’.
He is not technically a “dictator”.
I bet A’s appearance was a real blow to the Bush strategy. Nothing like keeping the crazy evil straw man thousands of miles away, so you can create a rabid, maniacal caricature that can’t be examined. Now we’ve heard from the rabid maniac himself, and to be honest, he comes off as being a player, a rube, a smart guy, and an idiot all at once. In other words, human. No longer the same bogeyman Bush needs him to be. So for this if nothing else, I say “Welcome to the US Mr. Ahmadinejad!”
Confirmed that Laurel has severe BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome.)
<
p>
Anything is acceptable as long as it is, in the slightest way, anti-Bush.
as is possible from someone with an MD* after their name.
<
p>
*Moronic Dementia
<
p>
shall we continue the tit-for-tat fest, or will you join us in reasoned dialog? by your comment, i take it that you agree with me that this was bad for bush. is it for the reason i suggested, or something else?
Laurel’s comments were about Bush’s very dangerous toying with military action against Iran. This is stupid and dangerous on multiple levels. Any sane person would rejoice at such plans being derailed.
Proof that progressives have totally lost all sense of good and evil and right and wrong is when the persecution and murder of homosexuals, among other politically incorrect social and religious groups, say, like Christians, is considered a “cultural difference.”
So you’re saying that’s a good thing? To the best of my knowledge, although Karl Rove has vigorously endorsed the, “persecution” of homosexuals, as I understand his strategy — a way of wedging votes away from more enlightened candidates — I wasn’t aware that the Republicans were actually endorsing murder. No doubt I misread you. Maybe you could clarify.
I think your taking a choice quote from Mill and expanding it to broadly encompass a lot of things it doesnt. It is one thing to endorse full free speech, which Mill does, and one thing to allow radical views to prosper, but the most crucial point that Mill makes is doing so will likely reinforce conventional ideas since it allows radical ideas to be spoken and critiqued, and also to critique the mainstream, but also to let them stand side by side with more conventional ideas and in some cases be refuted alongside them through that comparison. Essentially giving an anti-semitic dictator a platform to speak is not by itself a good thing but doing so in some respects to allow an open critique of that radical idea and then through that critique its discredidation is what Mill also mentioned several times.
<
p>
Moreover Kant had the better idea by stating that anyone can say anything they want in the private sphere i.e them speaking for themselves but anyone saying anything in a public sphere i.e in a university should be someone who has established credentials as a smart person with articulate ideas, they may challenge authority, but in the end they must also obey and respect its constraints for the sake of allowing order in daily official discourse.
<
p>
So in my view the speech barely passes Mills test and does not past Kants.
Mill, as the quotation makes clear, argued that engaging a diversity of views is the best path to truth. The Columbia people are saying the same thing, don’t you think?
<
p>
As to Kant, I’ll take your word for it. It is your position, then, that Kant in this case would argue that the President of the 18th largest country in the world with 70 million people should be ignored in favor of, let’s say, the views of a polite graduate student with excellent GRE scores?
Yes, I am sure you are right. Well, this atrocious attitude toward homosexuals may be a lot of things in addition to a, “cultural difference,” — I can think of many choice epithets — but I think that is indeed at least one way of describing it.
My point: to pass off their extermination as a “cultural difference” is impossible for me to comprehend. Who can view executing homosexuals as a quaint cultural difference?
<
p>
Why, Bob can! At least that’s how I read your opening thread.
<
p>
I have tried to understand why some progressives at BMG seem to be fawning over Ahmadinejad, and have concluded that most are blinded to his regime’s despicable behavior — on many fronts, not just persecution and murder of homosexuals — by their hatred of President Bush.
<
p>
This leads them to equate, as you just did, Bob, (a) hanging gay teenagers in a public square with (b) Karl Rove using wedge issues and playing identity politics.
<
p>
While the debate about Ahmadinejad’s appearance is a worthy one, minimizing his abhorrent statements seems to be a progressive trait. I would think you’d want Ahmadinejad arrested and convicted for his treatment of homosexuals.
<
p>
He’s approved the government policy of cleansing homosexuals from the Iranian population. Where’s the outrage?
<
p>
Instead, if his appearance and his statements, no matter how horrific, are seen as giving Bush a black eye, as Laurel does, it’s ok.
<
p>
This is moral relativism at its sick, absolute worst.
— she’s more than capable of doing that for herself đŸ˜‰ — but I think you’re missing her point. As I read her comment, she’s saying that, by bringing this guy to town, letting him speak, and actually hearing how ridiculous most of what he says really is (did you hear the tape of the crowd erupting into laughter when he made his claim that Iran doesn’t have homosexuals like we do in the U.S.?), he does us and the rest of the world the favor of demolishing whatever was left of his own credibility. Keller is exactly right on this:
<
p>
This is an avowed enemy of the US. Is pointing out his buffoonery adequate? Or is the strongest condemnation required?
<
p>
Or do progressive shrug off such crimes against humanity — I’m talking public hangings of homosexuals — because the speaker’s appearance is embarrassing to Bush?
<
p>
I think so. Blinded by hatred.
<
p>
And where is Act Up? Also blinded by hatred. Hypocrites, too.
I’m mot sure that Laurel can be fairly characterized as fawning over this guy. But there sure are so-called progressives who are. It must be an enemy of my enemy thing. Bush, like LBJ and Nixon before him, aren’t wrong, misguided, or in favor of bad policies, they are maliciously evil. The foreign leader opposed to the maliciously evil US presdient therefore must be, ipso facto, oppressed, which automatically puts you on the side of the angels.
<
p>
This is not a new phenomenon. Jane Fonda opposed the war, and therefore openly supported the other side. Those driving on the SE Expressway still get to look at the profile of Ho Chi Minh.
<
p>
Nothing like getting carried away with the extravagance of one’s conclusions.
<
p>
Yes, indeed, we now know something about all progressives everywhere.
I limit my indictment anyone on this thread who will not — cannot — tell me that Ahmadinejad’s homosexual cleansing policy is evil.
<
p>
KBusch, you first.
Yes. Cleansing a society of homosexuals by execution is evil. OK? Happy? It has already been said repeatedly that this is not a policy anyone with a conscience can agree with. You have that dichotomy you seem to be yearning for.
Now, whether that is a policy of Ahmadinejad's creation, whether he is actually a dictator, is another matter entirely. How many times must Sabutai remind us that Ahmadinejad is basically a glorified press secretary for the Leader?
Now that you have your dichotomy, you may not take that to mean it is a right and noble cause to bomb the bejeezus out of Iran. Foreign policy means a little bit more than placing “good” and “evil” nametags on things and to bomb all things marked “evil”.
Do we agree on that as well?
You make it sound like foreign policy decisions are made with a Wheel of Chance … give it a spin … Good, Evil, Good, Evil, Good … Evil … Good … aaandddd… Evil it is!
<
p>
The current foreign policy conclusion is result of years of fruitless “discussions” between UK/France/Germany and Iran, lying and cheating the IAEA over and over, domestic repression, executions of gays, smuggling into Iraq shaped charges which directly kill US troops, suppling weapons to Iraqi Shiite extremists resulting in tens of thousands of civilian deaths, funding of world-class terror outfit Hezbollah, fomenting and funding terrorism wherever opportune, declaring “Death to America” as official government policy, and threatening to “wipe Israel off the map.”
<
p>
When would it be OK to call them evil? When they actually nuke Israel? When a loaner nuke to al Qaeda detonates in Long Beach or NY harbor?
<
p>
No, “evil” isn’t simply a label slapped onto the illegitimate Iranian theocracy by the hated Bush administration. It is the end point on a long journey.
<
p>
If bombing Iran — detailed plans are drawn — is the next step, perhaps last step to prevent Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, then Bombs Away.
<
p>
And the French are with us!
<
p>
BTW, if Ahmadinejad is just the Mullahs’ mouthpiece, and he’s transmitting official Iranian policy (“kill gays”), then we can bomb the mullahs first.
Personally, I haven't seen anything in your post that justifies war with Iran.
Can you lay out more clearly your reasons for wanting to attack Iran?
Is it only to prevent them from acquiring nukes, or to protect Iranian gays, or are there other reasons?
What makes it “worth it” to attack Iran?
My description of the good / evil dichotomy is typical conservative thinking of how everything falls into two buckets: Good and Evil. That is why conservatives are so easily misled. They can be convinced of the “evilness” of a given thing pretty easily with a few well placed media spots and their mind is made up for them on most any subject.
I'm glad you, on the other hand, have the capacity for a certian degree of nuance. That is why I opened the line of questioning in my above post.
Moral relativism is just the opposite. Circumstances matter. Morality does not exist in a vacum. I'm sure you know that and for some reason harbor disdain for the concept. Why?
It is plain, bonehead ignorant to be worrying about Iran doing anything with al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is about re-establishing the caliphate. To Salafists of that sort, Shi’ites are heretics. They are in the way. Such Sunnis have murdered Shi’ites.
<
p>
The freaking last thing the Shi’ites in Iran are going to do is turn over nuclear weapons to their mortal enemies.
<
p>
If you’re going to wave you pop gun around and fight “good and evil”, you might try to learn the score first.
how Iran has lied to and cheated the IAEA over and over.
Wasn't it General Abizaid himself that said the world could coexist with a nuclear capable Iran anyhow?
There is a large article in the current issue of the New York Review of Books by Peter Galbraith that is very informative and is worth building a post out of. If I have time, I might do so. Until then, there’s always my old diary on Iran and Iraq.
To help untangle a complex situation.
If one reads the Texas Republican Party Platform, one will find their stated goal to recriminalize homosexuality, and their goal of a biblical government and laws, which would include the death penalty, potentially for gays as well.
In addition, there is the Costitution Restoration Act, sponsored recently, with thankfully no hope of passage, that proposes the right of judges to impose any punishment they desire, or ignore statutory limitation on sentencing, as long as the judge cites biblical support for this action. That would open the door for death to “sodomites”, etc. This bill has several Republican sponsors. Clearly, the current Republican administration has little or no moral ground to stand on, when being compared to Iran’s policy of death penalties for gays.
A link and some blockquotes would be very useful for out table in this food fight.
<
p>
Good find, pauliji.
why don’t you just go and work for the terroists. This is America, damn it. Like our great leader, Pres. Bush said,
“if ya not with us ya aginst us”
Would you also applaud if Columbia invited Bin Laden to speak? Maybe they could have him over secure videoconference or something so he could avoid capture*?
<
p>
I’m just curious where if anywhere you might draw the line.
<
p>
(*Or maybe Bush would be invading Iran and miss it loL!)
And as soon as he started speaking, and we targeted him, POW! A victory both for free speech and for retribution, right at the same time.
<
p>
It might be a short conversation.
<
p>
Actually, it’s an interesting question. You’ll note that I never said whether I think Columbia was right to invite Ahmadinejad. Now that you ask, however, I’ll say that I think it was useful: Columbia is about education, and this was educational — as the discussion and debate right on this page testifies. I learned a few things from the event, as I wrote.
<
p>
I can respect the argument that he already had a forum at the UN, so an extra speech at Columbia didn’t add much. On the other hand, if one wants to take that argument, one can say that giving him another chance to speak didn’t change much either way.
<
p>
In a certain sense, foes of Ahmadinejad should be the happiest that he was allowed to talk, because it should help them make their case against him.
<
p>
To answer your question as to Bin Laden: we’re at war with him, so of course I want to kill him, or capture him. I’d certainly draw a line at people we’re at war with, wouldn’t you?
<
p>
If you believe that Iran is helping to blow up American GI’s in Iraq (and I haven’t found anyone yet who doesn’t) then they are sneakily killing us (like al Qaeda) without declaring war.
<
p>
We could be at war soon I guess, so if you look at it that way he got in right under the wire.
One reason I personally wanted to hear what he had to say — setting aside the question of whether he should have been here in the first place, and given that wasn’t my call to make anyway — was because I think we might be at war with them at some point in the future. I think it is wise to know one’s enemy.
<
p>
As to whether Iran is, “helping to blow up American GI’s in Iraq,” I have no idea. I can easily imagine that they would be doing that, but I also can imagine a variety of reasons why they would not want to do that. Insofar as various administration officials make those claims, I don’t give too much credence to them, since they made so many untrue claims about Iraq. I do agree it is an important matter.
despite US (and global) intel failures in the past, its really the only thing we’ve got to go by.
<
p>
I mean it was mostly just WMD though right? And not forseeing 9/11? I think they do get alot of things right despite their high profile failures. I also believe that certain of their cabailities – previously hamstrung by various trepidations – have been improved a great deal since 9/11.
I doubt it, because I think their mistakes are not so much mistakes as deliberate miscalculations based on a flawed understanding of the way the world works, and excessive attention to the personal interests of the people in charge and their friends rather than the good of the country. But of course I hope for the best.
<
p>
As to whether it is unfortunate for me that the administration’s position is, “really the only thing we’ve got to go by,” two points: (1) there are other sources of good information about what is happening in Iraq and Iran besides the administration, and (2) it’s no more unfortunate for me than for you — unless I am mistaken, we’re in this together.
you dont want to believe it, and you believe some conspiracy around the edges too which puts you in a necessarily clueless state about what if anything our intel might mean.
<
p>
Past failures of our intel are also unfortunate for me as are any present and future failures. The difference is that I believe we’ve improved (to some degree, as we always eventually do after a democrat administration) and I don’t buy any of your assigned dastardly ulterior motives for a nanosecond.
<
p>
BTW I think you may have spouted an oxymoron with “deliberate miscalculations based on a flawed understanding”…
<
p>
Either they are deliberately wrong, or their understanding is flawed – but if their logic follows their flawed understanding then it is not deliberately wrong, just based on flaws. Oh well.
<
p>
… of information about Iran “helping to blow up American GI’s” is the current administration.
<
p>
I don’t trust them to take them at their word.
<
p>
Could someone cite someone more credible?
What Iran might be doing that indirectly “blows up American GI's” that we are not doing to Iran and also that we have not been doing to ourselves, and that our allies have been doing as well (ie. the Saudis, Turks, etc).
Remember that we have been arming all sides of this conflict. There are a great many US supplied weapons that have been turned against us. I'm having trouble seeing the significance of where the weapons are coming from when this is taken under consideration.
how liberals can so consistently sympathize with, apologize for, or outright take the side of our enemies. But lets put that aside for a moment and address your context-ignoring attempt at relativism:
<
p>
There is a difference between giving weapons to your allies at any given time, and those allies later turning into enemies, and giving weapons to your enemies. This is so obvious its hard for me to imagine you can’t grasp it, but it is a fairly common refrain on the left: “we armed Sadaam!” “And the mujahadeen!” If you think for approximately 1 extra second about it you can figure out that we were arming people who were our allies at the time against people who we considered worse.
<
p>
Furthermore, having armed some group in the PAST, when we were not at war with them, and continuing to arm and assist them NOW, are different things.
<
p>
Furthermore, developing new military devices specifically to e.g. penetrate our up-armored Humvees is different as well. Can you see the difference?
<
p>
Here is a quote from a USA Today article (for simplicity!) which generally takes a very skeptical position as to the extent of Iran’s involvement, including a quote from a Democrat:
<
p>
http://www.usatoday….
<
p>
<
p>
It would be awesome if some of the liberals on BMG could field a question like this in an intelligent manner.
I'm talking about week to week. I'm talking about the course of THIS Iraqi occupation.
WE have armed both Sunnis and Shia groups that are at odds with one another. WE also sit back while Saudi Arabia provides support to Sunni groups that are not necessarily our friends. WE have armed and trained forces in Iraq that have turned around and used the equipment and training against US forces. Yet I am supposed to be a good German (excuse the expression raj), and ignore this and direct the recommended measure of hate toward Iran for doing the same thing for the Shia that the Saudis are doing for the Sunni and the same thing that the US is playing at with both sides?
…like the difference between deaths from hostile fire and deaths from friendly fire. Hostile fire is intended to kill Americans (as the Iranian EFP’s are) and friendly fire is not (as any weapons that we provide landing in the wrong hands are not).
<
p>
Just because friendly fire occurs doesn’t equate us to the enemy.
Because thinking of it as fatal stupidity is not a great mood elevator. I'll take your advice and think of these things as unfortunate accidents and we'll see if that makes our troops any less deader.
Thanks d.
you may be able to understand what an enemy is.
<
p>
But wait – are you suggesting that maybe our weapons ending up in enemy hands and killing our own troops is intentional??
<
p>
Hoooboy I hope not.
I'm glad you have a word that makes you feel better about it.
I have a word too.
ClusterF*ck.
One, to the extent that the US and Iran might be enemies of one another, the US seems to have “made” Iran into an enemy of the US, but it is probable that Iran would not have considered the US an enemy but for GWBush’s declaration of Iran as being part of an “Axis of Evil.” That was, of course, childish goading on GWBush’s part
<
p>
GWBush helped Iran from the east by removing the Taliban thorn in Afghanistan. And, quite frankly the US helped Iran from the west, too, by removing a long-gelded Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Since both the US and Iran are essentially supporting the same Shi’ite factions in Iraq–the faction backin al-Maliki–it is somewhat silly to presume that the US and Iran should be enemies.
<
p>
Two, it strikes me that Americans are upset about the fact that the occupied (Iraqis) are firing at the occupiers (Americans) using weaponry that may have been smuggled in from other countries (in this case, allegedly Iran). It should be self-evident that those rebels who are rebelling are going to get their weaponry from somewhere (Maybe there was more weaponry at the depots in Iraq than was origionally believed.). I wonder how many people here would have condemned those who were obviously supplying the Irish Republican Army in their war against the British. And there are numerous other examples. The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. The rebels in the Acce province in Sumatra (Indonesia).. Those are only two examples.
<
p>
Let’s understand something. The way to protect the American troops in a regional conflict in which the US has no national interest is to withdraw. This is not a football game.
<
p>
Regarding Banned’s Yet I am supposed to be a good German (excuse the expression raj), no need to excuse yourself. A similar expression is used in Germany, but it is more in the nature of “a subservient German.”
good to know, thanks.
..so I’m not going to discuss its applicability here.
<
p>
I do have a comment on your “fourth, manners” point. I agree that Bollinger’s intrroduction in that way was ill-mannered. The way that it should have been handled is Bollinger tursely introducing Amadinejad (something on the order of “here he is, the president of Iran”), and after Amadinejad finished speaking, then addressing the matters raised during the speach and the policies of his country’s government. Amadinejad could have thereafter responded. That is discussion.
<
p>
The reason I would have done it that way is that it would put context to Bollinger’s comments.
Read away đŸ™‚
Kant would agree with me and say that no one denying basic facts of history like the Holocaust would be allowed to give a hate filled rant in an academic institution.
<
p>
Furthermore Mill would only support his free speech as a mode of discrediting his radical views through severe criticism. Again taking one quote of Mill out of context does not defend your argument, you should read all of On Liberty to fully understand the context.