The famed educational establishment is getting all sorts of heat since they’re inviting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at their campus. Seems he had a hole in his schedule since he wasn’t going to be visiting Ground Zero. (No word yet on whether he’ll be permitted to go to Disneyland. And if you have to ask why I brought that up, you’re too young for me to explain it.)
Naturally the University is being hammered by people who want to see the invitation revoked, because they’re incensed that they’re being forced to come and listen to him express his viewpoints over…
Oh. Wait. That’s right. No one is forcing them to do so, any more than people who are repulsed by certain TV programs or radio shows have had the “off” buttons removed from their TVs and radios.
No, it seems that they are revolted by the very IDEA of the Iranian thug getting up on a stage at Columbia and denying the Holocaust ever existed.
Except…this is America. And at the core of what makes this country great is that, if we find an idea repulsive, we’re supposed to respond to it with more ideas, not the smothering of those ideas. He wants to claim the Holocaust didn’t happen? Fantastic. Have him do so, and then confront him with survivors of concentration camps, or soldiers who were there when the camps were liberated. Let him call each and every individual a liar to their face, if he can.
But who knows what the long-term result could be? There’s no such thing as an instant life-transforming epiphany. Even when it seems that’s what’s happened, odds are that the groundwork was laid for it over the course of years. Someone like the Iranian president (which is easier to type than his name) isn’t going to instantly realize he’s wrong, but perhaps the seeds of doubt can be planted, in him or in other deniers. It’s worth a shot. The dissemination of ideas is ALWAYS worth a shot.
In point of fact, he probably should have been allowed to lay a wreath at Ground Zero. And he should have been met there by an assemblage of family members of victims, standing there with photos of their loved ones staring accusingly, putting a human face on the terrorism that he purportedly supports.
Perhaps he won’t care. Chances are he won’t. But again, you never know. The man, for all his bluster, for all his vituperation, for all his wrongheadedness, clearly has a fascination with this country, almost as if he’s seeking our approval and has absolutely no comprehension how to go about it.
We speak wistfully of world peace. Of everyone getting along. But many people are reluctant to fully get behind the first step to such a goal, which is to understand the views of those in opposition to them. I’m not saying “agree with” or “condone.” I’m saying “understand.” Understanding why people believe what they believe, and–if you disagree with them–doing your dámņëdëšŧ to make them understand YOUR point of view. Understanding one’s enemy on human terms is the only real path to peace, which should be self-evident since thus far dehumanizing the enemy or trying to bomb him into oblivion hasn’t gotten the job done.
The song says, “Give peace a chance.” Won’t ever happen if speech is smothered.
PAD
• 
This event and your blog reminds me of some thing that happened on one of the old talk shows back in the 80’s (Donahue, I think). They had a various young racist from areas around the country that didn’t have much chance for interaction with the people they hated, fly to NY city for the show. While they were on the show they spewed their hate speech to a divers audience that gave them hëll for it. Six months later they flew most of them back to NY for a fallow up show. Turned out that on their first trip to NY they got to see some thing that they never had a chance to witness first hand. People of different races, religions, and ethnicities living, working, and having fun together. On the follow up show most of them no longer held the their racist and separatist opinions.
the fact that Columbia won’t let the ROTC on campus because of their discrimination against gays…but invites the leader of s country that proudly executes gays and isn’t the least bit squeamish about anyone knowing it…
I think that’s apples and oranges, though. The Iranian president isn’t being invited to set up a permanent branch on campus and recruit people to his ideals.
I doubt most highly you would permit Billy Graham or another of his caliber speak at your university or other of the Christian faith, and probably not even of the Jewish faith.
Yes, I’m sure they have never, ever had a Christian or Jew speak at their university. Ever. (You do get that this is a political leader, not a religious figure, right?)
Yes, Ahmadinejad has said more than a few reprehensible things. Refuse to let him speak, he wins his point. Drown him out, and you are no better than the paid crowds who chant Death to America in Tehran.
Let him speak, let him make his vitriol obvious.
I think that’s apples and oranges, though. The Iranian president isn’t being invited to set up a permanent branch on campus and recruit people to his ideals.
If there isn’t a pro-Iranian organization on campus, one that recruits people to its ideals…I can state with absolute assurance that there was one. We had some of the members over for dinner.
My interpretation of the information is a literal interpretation: the power structure in Iran you seem to be referring to is indirectly accountable to elections, and literally qualifies for a definition of democracy you say it doesn’t qualify for.
I can only continue to cite the text I bold. An interpretation of the bolded text other than what seems to be the obvious reading needs to be provided — to nurture your denial of what sems to be its obvious interpretation.
If you haven’t just denied that wife-beating as a privilege is rooted in misogyny, I am totally open to hearing an alternate interpretation — or to accepting even a simple rephrasing — of what you’ve said.
If Bill wants to deny “Iranian women are brutally oppressed” was part of a list of facts to demonstrate “Calling Iran a ‘democracy’ is an abuse of the term,” that suits me fine. Otherwise, yes, employing the former text to demonstrate the validity of the latter text is “literally [trying] to make misogyny relevant to disqualifying iran as a democracy.”
You’ve just closed access to what you were referring to to not just me, but to anyone whose understanding of what happened to Larry Summers is completely compatible to what I’ve said, so whatever.
If you’re referring to the canceled invitation to speak at UC-Davis, none of the google results says what subject he was invited to speak as an expert on. If he, and his replacement the governor’s chief-of-staff, were invited to speak on why there are so few women on the Harvard science faculty, yes, their invitations should be f.n. canceled — they simply aren’t qualified to speak as experts on areas outside their expertise, just as you would protest a real estate lawyer who authored the executive justification to violate the Geneva Convention from becoming attorney general.
Posted by Mike
Or, to quote the Great Red Dragon “Why play an ace when a two will do?”
Or to quote Vizzinni “Never get involved in a land war in Asia”
“Micha, I get what you’re saying, but he’d also score propaganda points if we stop him from speaking. At least this way there’s always the chance something good will come out of it.”
Yes. That’s why I said that once the invitation was made recinding it would have done only more harm. However, making the offer in the first place accomplishes nothing but giving him the chance to score some propaganda points. It is unlikely that anything good will come of this.
Mike:
“My interpretation of the information is a literal interpretation”
Reading text literaly is enough of a mistake already. Texts are never written and should never be read literaly. However, never in your career on this board have you ever read text literaly. You read bits anmd pieces of the text which serve your interpretation over literaly. Which is why I reciommend again to anybody and everybody to go and read the original text — in this case Wikipedia’s entries on Iranian government and policy.
“I can only continue to cite the text I bold.”
You can, but it won’t make what you say anymore sensible or convincing. Thev brutal oppression of women by the Iranian government and the phenomenon of individual women being abused by individual men in America (which for some reason you felt necessary to connect to prohibition) are two unrelated phenomena.
Of course he should be allowed to speak.
I think that part of the reason that Northern Ireland has become so entrenched is because the parties don’t really listen to one another; they make speeches for the benefit of their own hangers-on, who cheer and reinforce their self-belief. One gets a mob mentality, where the simplest, most reactionary view gets the plaudits, because it resonates with the anger that people feel.
Both sides have been wronged. You can get hung up on that, fold your arms and refuse to talk; but where does that get you? How is the conflict possibly going to end, unless one the parties ceases to exist? Are those the options; generations of pain and strife, or another holocaust?
I have to hope not. The fact that people have, by and large, stopped shooting each other in Northern Ireland, gives me grounds for that hope. I never honestly thought I’d see that day.
“There’s no such thing as an instant life-transforming epiphany”
Yes there are.
They’re slightly rarer than rocking-horse droppings, but they do occur.
Been there, done that.
Cheers.
Ðámņ… dropped by for one simple comment, then saw:-
Gabh quoth:
“Both sides have been wronged. You can get hung up on that, fold your arms and refuse to talk; but where does that get you? How is the conflict possibly going to end, unless one the parties ceases to exist? Are those the options; generations of pain and strife, or another holocaust?
I have to hope not. The fact that people have, by and large, stopped shooting each other in Northern Ireland, gives me grounds for that hope. I never honestly thought I’d see that day.”
Northern Ireland is one that will never sit easy with me.
Two of the guys I was at school with died there, serving as ‘peace keepers’ when no one over there wanted any peace kept.
The Northern Ireland peace accord, from one perspective was a total sell out with some stomach turning grovelling to a bunch of murdering thugs who should stay banged up until 5 minutes after the apocalypse.
But we do now have a peace, of sorts.
And people are no longer dying there.
So that is a good thing, and I do have to swallow something that I really don’t enjoy swallowing…
Gabh is right. At some point, we do all have to grit our teeth and ‘get over it’, however emotionally impossible that may seem for some of the ‘it’ things that people have done to one another.
Cheers.
If you’re referring to the canceled invitation to speak at UC-Davis, none of the google results says what subject he was invited to speak as an expert on. If he, and his replacement the governor’s chief-of-staff, were invited to speak on why there are so few women on the Harvard science faculty, yes, their invitations should be f.n. canceled — they simply aren’t qualified to speak as experts on areas outside their expertise, just as you would protest a real estate lawyer who authored the executive justification to violate the Geneva Convention from becoming attorney general.
Blah blah blah…for anyone interested in the, ahem, facts, and not more speculation from the alternate reality that Mike exists in:
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_6956997?nclick_check=1
Former Harvard University President Lawrence Summers – whose invitation was rescinded last week after pressure by female faculty and staff – was going to tackle the subject of UC competitiveness.
“He had reached out to me and said, as an educator, he was concerned about the ability of UC to compete with private universities such as Harvard and Stanford,” said regents chair Richard Blum at a press briefing in Davis on Wednesday.
The truth of the matter is that for those who cower behind political correctness, Larry Summers should never be given any forum to speak. Not because they genuinely fear what he might say, though that would be sad enough, but because they want to send a message to anyone else who might think to cross their orthodoxy. Message being: Hey kid, if the president of Harvard can be brought down and made into a pariah for suggesting that research should be done on biological differences between the sexes and how this could impact the success of women in certain fields, what do you suppose will happen t a mere student who doesn’t toe the line?
I also like the quote from one of the people who insisted that Summers be banned, saying that she hoped the whole controversy would just go away now. Of course. It makes it hard to maintain the facade of open minded commitment to freedom of speech when the facts that say otherwise keep sticking around.
The thing I find weirdest is that the neo-cons and the talk radio bums don’t realize that Reagan and Nixon would have let him place the wreth at ground zero. Cleary the man is awful, but he’s trying to reach out a hand for peace to save his people with honor. Even at the height of the cold war and WWII we were talking to our enemies. If Bush is such a student of history, he would have known that. If people don’t want to hear him, don’t come, but if he wants to take a higher ground than Bush and Co. he should meet holocaust survivors and solders who were there and hear their stories.
I don’t know that he’ll be shouted down though. Tickets are hard to come by and were reserved. The reaction may well be determined by how they were allocated.
If they don’t get in, I’m sure there will be hundreds of people outside protesting as loudly as they can. This is NYC we’re talking about and it does have a very substantial Jewish population.
As for what he really believes, who knows? But, I wouldn’t associate having extreme views with being “crazy”. He and Chavez would not be able to hold their positions if they we not able to distinguish fantasy from reality.
If you can’t be taken at your word, what are you doing here?
When have I left out text that makes the bits and pieces I refer to incompatible to my interpretation of them?
You all heard it hear: “brutal oppression of women by the Iranian government” and the “women being abused by individual men in America” the American temperence movement was formed to counter do not have misogyny in common. Whaaateeeveeer.
So he was given his own discretion in speaking on a topic of his own choosing, and that discretion was withdrawn. That isn’t the same as being denied “any forum to speak.”
I once had a teacher who dismissed questions of how he graded students by saying that if he liked y’face you got an A, and if he didn’t like y’face — you didn’t get an A. Summers’s invitation seems to be founded on someone at UC Davis liking his face, and the faculty informed the inviter that Summers’s face was in fact severely disliked by them.
You indulge in a lot of hot-winded-wrongness for someone who responds to posts with “blah, blah blah.”
“Banned.” Like you and I aren’t also “banned” from speaking at UC Davis. Riiight.
“The thing I find weirdest is that the neo-cons and the talk radio bums don’t realize that Reagan and Nixon would have let him place the wreth at ground zero. Cleary the man is awful, but he’s trying to reach out a hand for peace to save his people with honor. Even at the height of the cold war and WWII we were talking to our enemies.”
I find this to be a strange post.
In the first part it refers to the kind of political realism that characterized Nixon, who pretty much put emotion aside and establlished relations with China. Why? Because he thought that the realistic political interests of the US are better served that way, even if he didn’t like China’s communist government.
But then in the second sentence: “Cleary the man is awful, but he’s trying to reach out a hand for peace to save his people with honor.” This does not sound very realistic to me.
The third sentence: “Even at the height of the cold war and WWII we were talking to our enemies,” seems to return to the realistic point of view. During the cold war communication between the enemies was used as an effective political tool even as the cold war was going on. Bush has acted very foolishly by reducing the tools at his disposal in world politics by neglecting diplomacy. But in order to use diplomacy effectively you have to approach it with a realistic state of mind.
It should also be pointed out that what we have here is not communication between the US and Iran, or negotiations of any sort. What we’re talking about is a lecture by the Iranian president in a private university, that’s all. From the realistic political point of view it gives Achmadinajad a convenient chance to appear like a great leader and, more importantly, to pass his political/ideological message or messages to two groups of audiences: the first, his home crowds, Iranians, Muslims, other groups who might consider him a leader of the opposition to US imperialism; the second are groups in the west who might be influenced in some way by what he has to say — this hopefully affecting western policies. In short, the game here is preception or propaganda (which is the same thing but with a negative connotation).
It is also possibly serving the interests of groups in Iran who did not feel that the policy of appearing outright hostile to the US was serving their (mostly economic) interests. Although I’m not sure that’s the case.
The last sentence: “if he wants to take a higher ground than Bush and Co. he should meet holocaust survivors and solders who were there and hear their stories,” again seems to me to move away from realism.
Achmadinajad may try to steer away from holocaust denial, so when asked about it, he will probably say something like: “all I want is an open historical debate about the holocaust, you are academics and should be willing to accept legitimate criticisms of your history. We (Iran) are of course against any killing of innocent civilians no matter how many…” And if he feels more bold he will add: “…even if only a few hundred thousands Jews were killed in the war, mostly from disease, like everybody else. What we are opposing is the attempts of the Jews to impose their version of history and to use it to extort the Germans.”
In doing this he will not gain higher ground the way you expect. He will gain higher ground sincde he will place himself and his cersion of history, his government, his policies, on an equal footing with the US, which is exactly what he is trying to accomplish.
—————
“Former Harvard University President Lawrence Summers – whose invitation was rescinded last week after pressure by female faculty and staff – was going to tackle the subject of UC competitiveness.”
I haven’t been folllowing this. It seems to suggest that Columbia does make moral considerations when deciding who the invite to speak. Which means they consider achmadinajad to be acceptable. This might her their PR a little bit. But they’ll recover. People who accuse college campuses of being too left leaning usually end up looking like idiots.
“If you can’t be taken at your word, what are you doing here?”
It is not my fault you like the basic skill necessary in order to read even the simplest text. You seem to be the only one with this problem on this board.
“When have I left out text that makes the bits and pieces I refer to incompatible to my interpretation of them?”
Too often to count.
“You all heard it hear: “brutal oppression of women by the Iranian government” and the “women being abused by individual men in America” the American temperence movement was formed to counter do not have misogyny in common.”
They have mysogyny in common, and not only that. Both happened in the modern era, by human beings on planet earth. Yet they are in fact significantly different phenomena that are not comparable in a way that is relevant to the subject at hand.
Again it is not my fault that you lack the abiliity to comprehend something so simple. Your deabilitating lack of comprehension is not something I can solve. You’ll have to take care of it yourself or you’ll keep being the guy who doesn’t understand what everybody else is saying. Then again, maybe misunderstanding what people say serves some purpose for you. if so, knock yourself out.
P.S.
‘Knock yourself out’ is an expression in the Engllish language which means, do whatever you want. I of course do not literaly suggest that you knock yourself out. If you already did, than take an ice pack or a steak from the freezer and apply it to the bump on your head.
You can always make it a first and cite one example.
Our disagreement is settled. Thank you.
You’re welcome.
I am happpy to help you understand things you lack the capacity to understand on your own.
Never be too shy to ask for help.
And you keep feeling free to ignore any sense that would stop you from challenging anything you can’t disqualify.
No. I’m sorry. I don’t have the time to point out to you every time when you say something wrong. I just had some downtime, but I hope you don’t expect me to correct you on a regular basis. No, you’ll have to improve your comprehension abilities yourself.
Bye.
So he was given his own discretion in speaking on a topic of his own choosing, and that discretion was withdrawn. That isn’t the same as being denied “any forum to speak.”
“Banned.” Like you and I aren’t also “banned” from speaking at UC Davis. Riiight.
So for those keeping track–Mike displayed his ignorance of recent news once by incorrectly assuming it was a years old event. When this was pointed out he displayed his ignorance of the actual current event by coming up with a pretend scenario where he might still be right. When this was proven incorrect he came up with…the above.
It seems clear to pretty much anyone that as far as Larry Summers is concerned, if you raise a taboo subject, apologize and lose your job over it, you might as well forget about ever being allowed to give a speech on any non-related subjects whatsoever at the University of California.
But it’s ok because, hey, Mike never gets invited to do it either! Come to think of it, Mike never got asked to write the screenplay to Spartacus either, so I don’t know where this idea of a so-called Hollywood Blacklist ever came from!
I’m going to quit while I’m ahead. the worst part about discussing things with Mike..besides the whole, you know, discussing things with Mike part…is the slight possibility that one might end up being the first person to lose an argument to him. THAT would be mildly embarrassing.
Just to clarify, the actual quote from Maureen Stanton, who led the petition drive to disinvite Summers, was “Frankly, we’d like to see the story just die at this point.” Well, of course you would! With even some of Summers former opponents at Harvard criticizing her actions it should come as no surprise that she was unavailable for further comment.
While it would be preferable if despicable people would just be less despicable, there’s at least some comfort in having them display a bit of shame at their own rotten nature.
Wow.
I go away for a few days, come back to see a thread header for what could be a ripping good debate and find the beginnings of a Mike Hijacking. The dependability of some things in this universe are amazing.
It is somewhat fascinating to see how quickly Mike’s issues with his borderline fear, revulsion and/or hatred of the opposite sex and his projection issues have manifested themselves this go round. It’s also equally funny and sad to see how, in Mike’s alternate reality, several complex political issues all boil down to abusing women. Having a bad month, Mike? Been permanently banned from yet another 1-900 number?
I know that several of you hold out hope that Mike will one day be able to engage in an entire debate here without once displaying his base nature, but you seem to have forgotten his one and only relevant, and possibly only honest, post ever made here. From that post:
Posted by: Mike at May 19, 2005 10:02 PM
But if you’re going to be a troll, you have to do it well, like I said in the other thread. Deny it if you want, but there’s no kidding anyone we both know it can be great fun.
Troll Boy may be loads of fun to use as a metaphorical punching bag when you’re just that bored or in need of a quick dose of cheap humor, but he’ll never outgrow the defining characteristics of who he is. It’s pointless to go down the Mad Mikey Troll Hole in search of adult or intellectually fulfilling debate. What’s the point other then self flagellation or using him as research for a book on the effects of advanced syphilitic mental disorders?
¡Nurse Ratched, no lo dice a mi madre, por favor!
Thank you for not disqualifying what I’ve said.
Has anything in the advent of political correctness been so audacious as to refer to an example of a bias not acted on as evidence of a bias was acted on where outcomes were the same? For the sake of Bill avoiding qualifying as tyrannical, cowardly and smugly self-indulgent, I hope not.
I can only thank you for not including in your indulgent display of disgust (fed by a 28-month-old post, glad you aren’t letting that stop you) a disqualification of anything I say.
“Troll Boy may be loads of fun to use as a metaphorical punching bag when you’re just that bored or in need of a quick dose of cheap humor.”
Yes, that’s it. A little depressing weekend wasted. Not in the mood to do anything constructive. Needed a little bit of cheap humor. But I wouldn’t calll Mike a punching bag. He’s not a passive victim in this thread. He makes his own choices, repeatedly. And somebody has to stand up to his bullying.
Anyway, there’s also a serious discussion going on in this thread. I think part of our problem is that most of the people participating in discussions here are reasonably sensible and civil, and also have a pretty similar outlook on most issues. so Mike sticks out like a sore thumb.
“I’m going to quit while I’m ahead. the worst part about discussing things with Mike..besides the whole, you know, discussing things with Mike part…is the slight possibility that one might end up being the first person to lose an argument to him. THAT would be mildly embarrassing.”
The chances are so slim, it’s virtually impossible. He lost every argument so far. But it doesn’t really matter. In his mind he won all the arguments anyway.
Thank you for not denying you can’t disqualify what I say.
Quite interesting. I posted about Mike’s nature as a troll, his projection issues, his fear, revulsion and/or hatred of women, his probable status as permanently unredeemable and his syphilis induced mental disorder. Mike responded without so much as disqualifying one thing that I asserted. Thus, Mike has tacitly admitted that each assertion is in fact true.
From this we can surmise that Mike is:
A) A troll
B) Making statements that are constantly confused and clouded by his projection issues
C) An unreliable source of honest information about women.
D) Will never attempt to change
and
E) Couldn’t change even if he wanted to due to his advanced state of syphilis induced mental degradation
Mike, thank you for not bother to disqualify any of the assertions I’ve or others have presented about you.
Now, looking at facts A – E, we can then reasonably deduce that nothing that Mike says is of any value. We can also reasonably deduce that Mike cannot say anything that can be taken at face value or safely believed.
Well, Mike, if you can’t be taken at your word, what are you doing here? Well, besides being a time wasting little troll who seems addicted to having his intellectual @$$ handed to him on a regular basis?
As to the worthwhile subject…
Most of the points I would make have already been made. Let the nut job speak. Actually seeing the ignorance and hatred that this man embodies live and in the speaking flesh might actually help to sway some of the people who are neutral about him into the camp of believing him to being a nut job.
I know a lot of people who are far to the left of me on the spectrum of ideology. When it comes to our government’s villain of the moment, they tend to get skeptical about the press and the press’s presentation of that individual. They’re always willing to go the extra mile or thirty to give villain of the moment the benefit of the doubt. They can’t be/aren’t really that bad. That’s just the good ol’ American Government Propaganda machine revving up to steamroll over some poor third world leader.
Nothing wakes those guys up faster then seeing an actual live speech that’s not filtered through the American press. Sometimes that’s in the form of a foreign news feed and sometimes it’s in the form of seeing the guy live while he visits the U.S. That could happen here. And I doubt that you’ll get people who will be swayed to his side so you’ve only got something to gain here.
I guess I have less faith in people and more people in Ahmadinejad’s ability to adapt the message to the audience.
Here is a sample.
Ahmadinejad’s Must Read Claims
Posted by Kamangir on September 17th, 2007
Ahmadinejad is going to New York, for attending a UN meeting. Before the trip, he answered to a handful of questions in the state-run television channel Jam-e Jam [Persian], which targets outside Iran. These are some of his sentences,
1- I have never been involved in a fight…I am not either a dictator or a violent person.
2- In Iran, there is no chance of dictatorship, because everything belongs to the people and people decide about everything….Americans have killed many people in Latin America, Africa and Iraq and must be tried for that.
3- It is sad when an Iraqi or a [American] soldier is killed in Iraq. Many of these soldiers don’t know where they are. They are poor and have become a soldier for its money. The 15 Birtish soldiers we captured a while ago didn’t know which part of the world they were in. [American] occupiers [of Iraq] send us letters. They think I am the president of Iraq. Many of them don’t even know where they are.
5- American students send me letters. They don’t have enough information and some of them think I am a Palestinian. When I was in New York, whenever the car slowed down, American youth would fist their hands [to show their support].
6- Europeans are outraged because of their governments’ support for Israel. They must hold referendums to decide about the Zionist regime.
7- We should give students scarfs with the peaceful nuclear energy symbol on them, for them to wear at school.
8- Americans always talk about human rights. They have no idea what human rights is. Wiretapping happens everyday in the US. A couple cannot speak together there. Do we do these things in Iran?
What am I insisting anyone take my word on, authority figure who arbitrarily trumps other peoples’ accounts of their own experiences with his own? Don’t strawman me, bro.
What am I insisting anyone take my word on, authority figure who arbitrarily trumps other peoples’ accounts of their own experiences with his own? Don’t strawman me, bro.
Yes.
Thank you for, yet again, not bothering to disqualify or deny any of the assertions I or others have presented about you here or on other threads. Thank you for admitting that you are a woman hating/fearing, mentally degraded Troll Boy who makes worthless comments that can’t be taken as of value.
Have a nice life. Oh, I’m sorry… Too late.
I made no such admissions.
Thank you for conveniently going back on your word to not strawman me in the same post you agreed to not strawman me. You’re so willing to indulge in what I simply observe you doing, it’s a wonder anything I say antagonizes you. Maybe something about being the violin on which I play makes you all hot and bothered.
Mike,
Thank you for not denying that you confirmed to deny your earlier denial of the conformation of your admissions while continuing to fail to confirm your denial to deny what you so obviously failed to deny to begin with.
Pathetic.
Oh, and thank you for not denying I’m not asking anyone to take my word on anything.
Newsarama called. They want their political slap fight back! 😉
Posted by: Jerry Chandler at September 22, 2007 09:41 PM
“Mike,
Thank you for not denying that you confirmed to deny your earlier denial of the conformation of your admissions while continuing to fail to confirm your denial to deny what you so obviously failed to deny to begin with.”
Posted by: Mike at September 22, 2007 09:43 PM
“Oh, and thank you for not denying I’m not asking anyone to take my word on anything.”
Well, so long as we all agree. (undeniably)
Peter, the point became moot back in the 90s with the Anita Hill / Clarence Thomas case, when the fiscal Left finally conceded the Free Speech argument to the social Right and instead of arguing against censorship argued for their OWN categories of censorship.
In arguing against “hate speech” they were arguing against speech. Once that train left the station the consequences were inevitable and predictable.
Look how many people signed up to be on “No Call” lists because the effort of hanging up on telemarketers, or simply skipping calls that ID telemarketers on Caller ID was too “inconvenient”.
Mere speech offends so your speech must be squelched, at work, at school, on tv, on film, in music, in video games, in print–including comic books.
— Ken from Chicago
P.S. Too bad there isn’t some … code … everyone could agree to.
And we pause for a moment of silence to remember Marcel Marceau…
(*)
~8?(“
Well, if you’re going to agree I’m not asking anyone to take my word on anything, what then is there to get snippy at me about? Jerry’s inability to cite anything here that invited his disgust qualifies it as simple projection (re: 6.b.).
From an AP article this morning:
“”The United States is a big and important country with a population of 300 million. Due to certain issues, the American people in the past years have been denied correct and clear information about global developments and are eager to hear different opinions,” Ahmadinejad was quoted by IRNA as saying.”
I can only laugh.
Hmmm… rummage, rummage… ah! Issue 23, Supergirl. Steel. Not Very Nice Fellow speaking at Stanhope University. Lotsa debate about whether he should be allowed to speak or not…
thought this seemed familiar…
I say let him speak, however I would also encourage anyone thinking of going to hear his drivel to stay home instead. While free speech is a noble idea, there is nothing noble about wasting one’s time listening to drivel that is as coherent as the ramblings of a lunatic on a street corner with a sign saying “the end is nigh.” I think it would be a victory for western civilization were the president of Columbia to introduce Ahmadinejad to an empty lecture hall and then walk out leaving the president of Iran completely alone: the ultimate snub for any demagogue.
What frightens me is the thought that Columbia might be letting him speak, not from the desire to allow someone the freedom to express unpopular ideas, but rather because the management of the university is so out of touch with reality that it believes those ideas have merit in and of themselves.
“there is nothing noble about wasting one’s time listening to drivel that is as coherent as the ramblings of a lunatic on a street corner with a sign saying “the end is nigh.”
No.
He will not sound like a lunatic, and what he says is both coherent (as much as it is wrong) and will be taylored to fit his audience. It’s possible that because he is not really familiar with America and because he is so certain of his own ideaas, that he will overshoot and say things that will not have the desired effect on his audience.(back in August 1990 Saddam started to talk about Indians in an interview to ABC).
Should you listen to it? Certainly, but critically. I assume most of you (except one) are capable of listening to his material with a critical ear. Unfortunatly his words will haver traction with some audiences in the west as they always do. But that’s the price of freedom of speech.
Whenever I hear the phrase “price of freedom of speech” I always think of the exchange from the pilot episode of “West Wing,” when a religious lobbyist confronts President Bartlett.
“Mr. President, may I ask you a question?”
“Of course.”
“Don’t you think that a child being able to buy pornography on a street corner for five dollars is too high a price to pay for freedom of speech?”
“No.”
“Really?”
“I do, however, think that five dollars is too high a price to pay for pornography.”
PAD
“encourage anyone thinking of going to hear his drivel to stay home instead”
While I can see where this line of thinking comes from, this guy has been painted as Nutjob Number 3 in Current Events:The Movie. You know, “axis of evil,” and all that. Now, I’m not saying he isn’t completely coocoo for Cocoa Puffs, but if he’s willing to present himself, I think it’s a mistake to NOT hear him out. Best condition coming out of it–maybe some base to build a diplomatic relationship. Worst–yeah, he really is a history-rearranging nutjob with too many vowels in his name. But then at least we’d know, for a fact, not just because it’s what we’re told. My six year old is already at the inquisitive, why-is-it-like-this stage. He wants to know why. Seems a lot of people grew out of that and are willing to just take whatever they’re given without getting more information.
For his agenda of bolstering anti-Judiasm/holocaust-denial in the US, sure. But bolstering anti-Judiasm/holocaust-denial in the US, and simply bolstering the resolve to dedicate one’s self to anti-Judiasm/holocaust-denial, are not interchangeable agendas.
If you’re going to measure truth by consensus, by treating those two agendas as interchangeable for example, then you are giving Iran your consent to believe whatever their majority agrees is the truth. Consenting to the individual’s or Iran’s devotion to anti-Judiasm/holocaust-denial is not a “price of freedom of speech.” Instead, obstructing his influence is a goal that cannot be accomplished without the freedom of speech.
Sean, it is important that you do not think of him as a nutjob. I hope you reject his opinions, but they are not his alone, and they should be taken seriously.
I doubt diplomatic relationship can be the result of his visit to Columbia University — unless it declares independence. He is also visiting the UN, which is a place of diplomacy.
I should qualify what I said by adding that the Oslo accords between Israel and the PLO started as meetings between private academics. But then again, these accords ended in failure, so maybe it is not a good idea to let academics play in diplomacy no matter how well meaning they are.
———————-
Mike, I sincerely have no idea what you’re talking about.
“If you’re going to measure truth by consensus”
The nature of truth was not tthe subject of my post in any way.
“you are giving Iran your consent to believe whatever their majority agrees is the truth”
Iran is a sovereign nation, what they believe has little to do with my consent. All I can do as a Jew, as an Israeli and as a human being is to ensure that the memory of the Holocaust endures, and that the Jewish people endure.
“Consenting to the individual’s or Iran’s devotion to anti-Judiasm/holocaust-denial is not a “price of freedom of speech.”
The price of freedom of speech is that I must tolerate Columbia’s decision to give Ahmedinajad a podium from which to promote his message. It is a price I believe it is right to pay.
“Instead, obstructing his influence is a goal that cannot be accomplished without the freedom of speech.”
Not so. Countries like Iran use restritions on freedom of speech to obstruct undesirable influences. However most western countries are unwilling to use these methods. Rightly so, I believe.
It should also be pointed out that Holocaust denial is only a small aspect of Ahmedinajad’s message or agenda. He only adopted it because he believes that by unndermining the memory of the holocaust he can undermine Israel (and possibly also the power he believe Jews have in the US, but I’m not certain of that), and because it increased his personal prestige. It is likely that he will seek to avoid this subject when addressing an American audience, unless his miscalculates and assumes that you will be receptive to holocaust denial, as he did when he suggested it in a letter to the German chancellor. He thoought that she would be happy to entertain the idea that the holocaust was a Jewish conspiracy.
Similarly, in his letter to Bush he adapted his message because he knew that Bush was a religious conservative, although I think he overshot here too:
“Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems.
We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point — that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: “Do you not want to join them?”
Mr. President,
Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the
Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.
Vasalam Ala Man Ataba’al hoda
[Meaning: And peace to those who obey the guidance]
Mahmood Ahmadi-Nejad
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Source: – http://www.president.ir/eng/ahmadinejad/cronicnews/1385/02/19/index-e.htm#b3“
I haven’t been able to see the actual speech yet but if this transcript of the president of Columbia accurately describes his opening remarks, he deserves many kudos:
Mr. Bollinger asked Mr. Ahmadinejad: “Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator, and so I ask you, and so I ask you, why have women members of the Bahai faith, homosexuals and so many of our academic colleagues become targets of persecution in your country?”
He asked whether Mr. Ahmadinejad was using a nuclear confrontation with the West to distract from his incompetent leadership at home. He also asked to be allowed to lead a delegation of scholars to Iran to speak freely, as Mr. Ahmadinejad can do today.
He confronted Mr. Ahmadinejad over his description of the Holocaust as “a fabricated legend,” calling him either “brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.” He called Columbia a world center of Jewish studies that since the 1930s has provided a home for Jewish refugees. He called the Holocaust “the most documented event in human history.”
“Today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for,” Mr. Bollinger told Mr. Ahmadinejad. “I only wish I could do better.”
That took balls. Good show, sir.
Look how many people signed up to be on “No Call” lists because the effort of hanging up on telemarketers, or simply skipping calls that ID telemarketers on Caller ID was too “inconvenient”.
This is quite possible the stupidest fûçkìņg thing anyone has ever written on this site.