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
• 
Two factual points:
1)Saudi Arabia is considerably less democratic than Iran, and just as repressive towards women (possibly more so).
2)No matter how much the right-wingers whine that Summers was persecuted for a “suggestion” his speech is quite clear that he believes (not just wonders) that women are genetically less qualified for science than men (ergo, hiring more women would be a Bad Thing). It was, moreover, neither a scientifically or logically sound speech: For one thing, even if most women were genetically less qualified, that wouldn’t prove discrimination doesn’t exist (women who break into male disciplines are often greeted with sexism, not respect for surpassing their DNA).
If I were on the Harvard faculty, I’m not sure I’d be that keen on him passing judgment on female professors either.
Oh, and as far as the poor, poor oppressed conservatives go, Pat Buchanan, let us remember, is the guy who claims white women need to breed more to keep European whites the dominant race in this country (he’s apparently unaware that Hispanics come from Spanish ancestry and are therefore quite European). He’s also asserted that Holocaust survivors are living “a fantasy of denial.” And he’s still out there making TV appearances and being taken as a serious commentator.
If someone advocated African Americans having larger families so they could replace white people as the dominant race, he wouldn’t be appearing anywhere.
Oh, and as far as the poor, poor oppressed conservatives go, Pat Buchanan, let us remember, is the guy who claims white women need to breed more to keep European whites the dominant race in this country (he’s apparently unaware that Hispanics come from Spanish ancestry and are therefore quite European). He’s also asserted that Holocaust survivors are living “a fantasy of denial.” And he’s still out there making TV appearances and being taken as a serious commentator.
If someone advocated African Americans having larger families so they could replace white people as the dominant race, he wouldn’t be appearing anywhere (though that wouldn’t stop conservatives reacting as if the Democrats had made him party head).
1)Saudi Arabia is considerably less democratic than Iran, and just as repressive towards women (possibly more so).
True. Irrelevant, but true. As far as I know, they are not in any danger of getting the bomb any time soon, but I will not shed a tear if the day comes when every Saudi “prince” finds himself lined up against the wall and summarily shot.
No matter how much the right-wingers whine that Summers was persecuted for a “suggestion” his speech is quite clear that he believes (not just wonders) that women are genetically less qualified for science than men (ergo, hiring more women would be a Bad Thing). It was, moreover, neither a scientifically or logically sound speech: For one thing, even if most women were genetically less qualified, that wouldn’t prove discrimination doesn’t exist (women who break into male disciplines are often greeted with sexism, not respect for surpassing their DNA).
If I were on the Harvard faculty, I’m not sure I’d be that keen on him passing judgment on female professors either.
Not all of Summer’s supporters are right wingers. Neither is he (or he never would have gotten the job in the first place.
I notice you don’t actually link to his remarks or provide an example. Guess we’ll have to take your word for it.
Or look it up.
(keep in mind that “The organizer of the conference at the National Bureau of Economic Research said Summers was asked to be provocative, and that he was invited as a top economist, not as a Harvard official.”)
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/01/17/summers_remarks_on_women_draw_fire/
(On the other hand, just because someone asks you to be provocative, you ought to be smart enough to know that they might not really mean it and it’s not THEIR ášš that is on the line, after all. I put that in the same category as when your boss says “I appreciate candor.”)
But anyway, here’s the speech, at http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html
Feel free to make up your own mind, don’t just take the word of those who have their own agenda.
Personally, while I don’t find his statements altogether convincing, I’d have a lot less trouble having him teach one of my daughters than, say, the MIT professor who walked out of the speech and said that if she hadn’t left, “I would’ve either blacked out or thrown up.”
Oh, and as far as the poor, poor oppressed conservatives go, Pat Buchanan, let us remember, is the guy who claims white women need to breed more to keep European whites the dominant race in this country (he’s apparently unaware that Hispanics come from Spanish ancestry and are therefore quite European). He’s also asserted that Holocaust survivors are living “a fantasy of denial.” And he’s still out there making TV appearances and being taken as a serious commentator.
Pat Buchanan is an idiot and doesn’t even have much support among conservatives, though his recent books blaming most of our ills on Jewish neo-conservatives might jut make him a hero of the left before it’s all said and done.
If someone advocated African Americans having larger families so they could replace white people as the dominant race, he wouldn’t be appearing anywhere (though that wouldn’t stop conservatives reacting as if the Democrats had made him party head).
Louis “”White people are potential humans — they haven’t evolved yet” Farrakhan? He appeared plenty of places, at least until his health went south. There was also Black studies professor Leonard Jeffries at CCNY who continues to spew racist and anti-semitic bilge. One doesn’t have to look hard to find minority equals to Buchanan’s stupidity. So far as I know, nobody has claimed them to be heads of the Democratic party but I suppose someone might have…whatever that would prove.
”
Anyone think that the president of Iran might [be]…greeted with loud, rowdy mobs that try to shout him down?
(So it doesn’t look like I’m trying to misrepresent this comment, all I did was remove the bit about the pie.)
Now that we have the AP’s article on the event, let’s see what they have to say: (I’m leaving out some of the bits Bill quoted earlier)
Ahmadinejad smiled at first but appeared increasingly agitated, decrying the “insults” and “unfriendly treatment.” Columbia President Lee Bollinger and audience members took him to task over Iran’s human-rights record and foreign policy, as well as Ahmadinejad’s statements denying the Holocaust and calling for the disappearance of Israel.
Referring to his statement on homosexuals: With the audience laughing derisively, he continued: “In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who’s told you that we have this.”
Bollinger was strongly criticized for inviting Ahmadinejad to Columbia, and had promised tough questions in his introduction to Ahmadinejad’s talk. But the strident and personal nature of his attack on the president of Iran was startling.
Thousands of people jammed two blocks of 47th Street across from the United Nations to protest Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York. Organizers claimed a turnout of tens of thousands. Police did not immediately have a crowd estimate.
Protesters also assembled at Columbia. Dozens stood near the lecture hall where Ahmadinejad was scheduled to speak, linking arms and singing traditional Jewish folk songs about peace and brotherhood, while nearby a two-person band played “You Are My Sunshine.”
Signs in the crowd displayed a range of messages, including one that read “We refuse to choose between Islamic fundamentalism and American imperialism.”
So, yeah, clearly he was treated with so much more open, uncritical, warm acceptance than Ann Coulter or Pat Buchanan would have been. Still want to see Benjamin Netanyahu get the same treatment?
“Pat Buchanan is an idiot and doesn’t even have much support among conservatives, though his recent books blaming most of our ills on Jewish neo-conservatives might jut make him a hero of the left before it’s all said and done.”
Uhhh….. Yeah.
I’ll chalk that one up to the stress of all those fresh but manic faces coming back into your life this month.
I should have said “hero of the insane left”.
Doug–it sounds to me that the problem Ahmadinejad had with his reception was that they dared to ask him uncomfortable questions and laughed at some of the answers. That’s a far cry from being physically threatened or shouted down. Sounds to me like he was treated fairly enough–not our fault if he hadn’t the wit to make himself look good. In all fairness, that’s not easy when you’re batshit crazy.
I should have said “hero of the insane left”.
Ok.
–not our fault if he hadn’t the wit to make himself look good. In all fairness, that’s not easy when you’re batshit crazy.
Yeah, I watched the thing while getting ready for work and laughed my tail off. He got creamed in the thing.
I’ve got my XM on now so that I can listen to the cable news shows. After all of the talk about how the libs at Columbia University were going to embrace him as one of their own, I can’t wait to hear how Bill’o and Hannity will try to spin this tonight. Should be almost as funny as the event itself.
Oh yeah, Bollinger has some mad street cred now. Even some of the crew at National review are having to admit they misjudged him. A few of the Kos kids are pìššëd at him but you can’t please everyone.
Well, the Fox News spin so for, right up through O’Reilly, has been that Bollinger was backtracking and acting tough because knew how much trouble he was in or to just blunt the blows of his critics.
Ans as I typed that, that’s how Hannity opened his bit on it as well. Any bets on how many of those clowns will be claiming that it was specifically their reporting on this that caused the tough questions and treatment by Bollinger?
Doug–it sounds to me that the problem Ahmadinejad had with his reception was that they dared to ask him uncomfortable questions and laughed at some of the answers. That’s a far cry from being physically threatened or shouted down. Sounds to me like he was treated fairly enough–not our fault if he hadn’t the wit to make himself look good. In all fairness, that’s not easy when you’re batshit crazy.
Yeah–sometimes all it takes to make someone look bad is to let them be themselves. Mostly I wanted to counter the implications from earlier that allowing him to speak meant he would be treated nicely (that’s why I pulled out the quote about the audience laughing derisively at him). If Coulter or Buchanan were up there they might not be well-received by the audience, but I doubt the president of the university would express such naked contempt for them, either.
I can’t wait to hear how Bill’o and Hannity will try to spin this tonight.
Oh, some already spun this before the visit even occurred.
I’ve seen mention that Ahmadinejad is “team(ing) up with the radical anti-war left” or that he’s using ‘liberal talking points’.
The insinuation being, of course, that liberals support Ahmadinejad.
Man, I can’t wait to see what some conservatives come up with next!
Anyone wanting to read Kooky McCombover’s remarks for themselves should head over to http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/pp.asp?c=hsJPK0PIJpH&b=672581
Dreary stuff for the most part, though the no gays in Iran bit is worth a chuckle. Wonder if he believes that or if it’s something he’s working toward.
All in all, it would seem that supporting free speech did much more good than harm here.
Craig,
Yeah, I knew what the early spin was. I was just wondering how they would spin the fact that Ahmadinejad wasn’t embraced by the U and its students as they predicted would happen. Bill’O was almost funny, but Hannity was just repulsive. He played clips of the applause (applause for Bollinger or his remarks that were time delayed due to the translation process) and billed it as the students applauding Ahmadinejad. I actually saw the thing, so I know he was fabricating his scummy little @$$ off and overplaying any of the positive responses that Ahmadinejad received from some in the audience. He even, despite the Fox News breaks completely contradicting him, claimed that Ahmadinejad was claiming that he was embraced by America and its University. I wonder how many members of his regular TV and radio audience watched the speech themselves VS taking his word for how events played out?
I’m not going to make your complaints you can’t understand fragments of my sentences as whole and complete statements my problem.
I didn’t said it was.
Again, you haven’t denied what I’ve said.
So upholding the standard of opening access to even adversarial viewpoints isn’t good work on the part of Columbia, but is instead their indulgence for you to tolerate?
You’re trying to disprove what I say with a completely compatible statement again, Micha. That isn’t how it’s done.
He didn’t have to take the slack he was given to demonstrate he wasn’t qualified to lead the Harvard faculty. You’d think no one’s career ever suffered from some fool thing they did at the office Christmas party, and only poor old Larry was singled out. I hear “she asked for it” would have been OJ’s excuse if he killed his wife.
Personally, I think walking out during Summers’s speech, off of the stage he was speaking from if I’m remembering the reports correctly, qualifies her as a true stud. Like she was supposed to take his speech and say, “That guy who keeps bragging to the audience he knows nothing about what I go through at work? I want him to evaluate my work.” Was the pointy-haired boss from Dilbert not available when they hired Summers?
The transcript of President Ahmadinejad’s talk is fascinating. I believe the questions he was asked were actually tougher than some of the US Presidential debates I’ve seen.
What’s really amazing is how much he talks about the freedom of the Iranian people. He’ll say that the Iranian people are the most free in the world, but then he’ll talk about legal restrictions that we would consider massive. It really seems as if he believes that the way to achieve freedom for a people is to impose incredibly strict rules upon them.
“Posted by: Jerry Chandler at September 24, 2007 09:07 PM
Well, the Fox News spin so for, right up through O’Reilly, has been that Bollinger was backtracking and acting tough because knew how much trouble he was in or to just blunt the blows of his critics.
Ans as I typed that, that’s how Hannity opened his bit on it as well. Any bets on how many of those clowns will be claiming that it was specifically their reporting on this that caused the tough questions and treatment by Bollinger?”
I saw a guy on CNN, possibly Iranian, apparently sumpathetic to Ahmadinejad, who also said that Bollinger caved in to the preassure – that he preemptively struck (his words).
“I’m not going to make your complaints you can’t understand fragments of my sentences as whole and complete statements my problem.”
I can’t understand most of your sentences in this post and don’t have the time to unravel your tortured sentences. If I can’t comprehend what you’re sayinng, I can’t really offer a response. But them, you never were interested in conversation, only to score points in the imaginary game you play with yourself. so no harm done.
Mike: “If you’re going to measure truth by consensus””
Micha: “The nature of truth was not tthe subject of my post in any way.”
Mike: “I didn’t said it was.”
“Again, you haven’t denied what I’ve said.”
I’m not exactly sure what you were trying to say, or how it was related to what I said initially, so I responded with words that I felt was pertinent to this discussion and which would benefit the other readers here.
But then, you are not really interested in communication, only to stroke your own ego by claiming (truthfully or not) that your ramblings were not denied. If it makes you feel good then knock yourself out.
p.s.
knock yourself out is an expression in the english language…
“So upholding the standard of opening access to even adversarial viewpoints isn’t good work on the part of Columbia, but is instead their indulgence for you to tolerate?”
Again, very tortured sentence. Not exactly clear how it relates to what I said. Again, for your benefit: ther decision to invite Ahmadinejad is Columbia’s unalienable right. Howevver I didn’t think it was right of them to do so. I still don’t.
“You’re trying to disprove what I say with a completely compatible statement again”
a. I aam not trying to disprove what you say. Your deseased ego only perceives it that way.
b. What I said is different from what you said in a significant way. If it is unclear to you I’ll explain it. But then, mutual comprehension is not your agenda. In fact you delight in misreading what people say.
———————–
I haven’t seen Ahmadinejad’s performance, but from what I read it seems to me that he used the same material I’m already familiar with. No new material. As I expected he seems to have been prepared for most things, except the ambush by Bollinger and the question about homosexuals. I’m embarrassed to say I didn’t see that one coming. He was really caught in a bind. In all the other cases he could answer that Iran loves human rights, Jews, women, American, and cute puppies, but he couldn’t get around homosexuals. He should have prepared better so he could say something that was sufficiently conservative but palatable to Americans, but he just couldn’t.
Then why didn’t you hold me accountable to a sentence you can’t parse, rather than holding me to a sentence with a whole prepositional phrase you removed from its middle? An instance of the first is easier than an instance of the second.
Are there any other rights reserved that can be wrong, or have we found the only one?
Thank you for following up your complaints you can’t comprehend sentences you haven’t specified or edited with a contradiction. That isn’t self-serving at all.
“Are there any other rights reserved that can be wrong, or have we found the only one?”
Exercising a human or civil right can be measured to be the correct or the incorrect thing to do at any givven moment depending on the circumstances. People might differ as to whether it was correct or incorrect to exercise a right, while not denying that the right to do so exists.
For example, you have the right to behave like a troll here. It is my opinion that you should not do so, that it is wrong. But it is your right to decide whether to continue behaving like a troll or not. I do not dispute your right to behave like a troll, only the wisdom in doing so.
Pat Buchanan is an idiot and doesn’t even have much support among conservatives, though his recent books blaming most of our ills on Jewish neo-conservatives might jut make him a hero of the left before it’s all said and done.>>
Ah, the “lefties who criticize neo-cons hate jews” line of illogic.
Yes, looking down on idiots who’ve contributed to getting 3,000-plus Americans killed in a useless war, lie about how brilliantly it’s going and in some cases can’t wait for us to go on and attack Iran as well couldn’t possibly be for their politics and stupidity, could it?
But since the left has been right about the war and the pro-war supporters wrong, wrong, wrong, I don’t blame the pro-war supporters for playing the victim card (conservatives have mastered the art, even as they whine about how everyone else does it>
If someone advocated African Americans having larger families so they could replace white people as the dominant race, he wouldn’t be appearing anywhere (though that wouldn’t stop conservatives reacting as if the Democrats had made him party head).
Louis “”White people are potential humans — they haven’t evolved yet” Farrakhan? He appeared plenty of places, at least until his health went south. There was also Black studies professor Leonard Jeffries at CCNY who continues to spew racist and anti-semitic bilge. One doesn’t have to look hard to find minority equals to Buchanan’s stupidity. So far as I know, nobody has claimed them to be heads of the Democratic party but I suppose someone might have…whatever that would prove.>>
I didn’t say nobody on the left was as dumb as Buchanan–my point was that where Buchanan, much as you may squirm at the thought, remains a mainstream right-wing figure, you have to go to some college professor of no other note to find a comparison.
It’s the same logic by which Ward Churchill’s (or was it Wade)’s comments on 9/11 were taken by many conservatives as proof of fundamental Democratic/liberal attitudes that America Deserved It, as if he were a major spokesman for the left. No such criticism was heaped on Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell for saying America deserved it, even though they’re far more prominent on the right than Churchill is on the left.
Fraser, obviously nothing I could say will dissuade you from your bias but if you are going to go off on grand generalizations you have to expect a little blowback.
I didn’t say nobody on the left was as dumb as Buchanan–my point was that where Buchanan, much as you may squirm at the thought, remains a mainstream right-wing figure, you have to go to some college professor of no other note to find a comparison.
I don’t see him as a “mainstream right-wing figure”, though I suppose it’s hard to say just how one quantifies those things. Certainly, many on the left would like to think he is a typical conservative. Given his sorry showing in his last election attempt (a brutal 0.4%…Gus Hall numbers), puny circulation of his magazine (Paid circulation in 2004, was 12,600), and the near total lack of respect he gets from the Republican Party, current administration, truly mainstream conservatives (like the National Review crew)…I’d say calling him a mainstream right-wing figure is incorrect. You may disagree and even have reasons to do so, though you may find simple ad hominem replies easier and more satisfying.
And for the life of me, I can’t understand why you think the fact that I disagree with Pat Buchanan on so many issues would make me squirm. I mean, worst case scenario, Pat Buchanan really does speak for the vast majority of conservatives and I am alone in my beliefs. Oh well. Guess I wouldn’t be in the mainstream…boy, that’ll really shock all who know me!
No such criticism was heaped on Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell for saying America deserved it, even though they’re far more prominent on the right than Churchill is on the left.
Sorry, but that’s just wrong. Just perusing the National review site, you have the columnists there calling Robertson “insane”, “I’d consider him an embarrassment if I somehow felt associated with him”, “What an offense that this man was a serious candidate for the presidency. He was our Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.” etc, etc.
In fact, I’m hard pressed at the moment to think of any mainstream conservatives who take Robertson seriously. I’m sure some exist. But the idea that his dopey comments escape criticism from conservatives indicates you don’t read much from conservatives. Well, there’s only so much time…but you might be more circumspect in making overreaching statements about such things.b
From Andrew Sullivan’s blog comes the kind of hard to believe reaction from the Columbia Queer Alliance. What do you do when your knee-jerk multiculturalism collides with genuine concern for people who are being killed for the “crime” of loving the wrong gender? Well…
“We condemn the human rights violations perpetrated by the Iranian government under the administration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. We admonish the policies that make same-sex practices punishable by torture and death, as well as those that restrict the freedoms and self-determination of women.
“We stand in solidarity with our peers in Iran, but we do not presume to speak for them. We cannot possibly claim to understand the multiple and diverse experiences of living with same-sex desires in Iran. Our cultural values and experiences are distinct, but the stakes are one and the same: the essential human right to express our desires freely. Moreover, we would like to strongly caution media and campus organizations against the use of such words as “gay”, “lesbian”, or “homosexual” to describe people in Iran who engage in same-sex practices and feel same-sex desire. The construction of sexual orientation as a social and political identity and all of the vocabulary therein is a Western cultural idiom. As such, scholars of sexuality in the Middle East generally use the terms “same-sex practices” and “same-sex desire” in recognition of the inadequacy of Western terminology. President Ahmadinejad’s presence on campus has provided an impetus for us all to examine a number of issues, but most relevant to our concerns are the complexities of how sexual identity is constructed and understood in different parts of the world.”
As Sullivan points out, this legitimizes Ahmadinejad’s dopey comments about there being no gays in Iraq. Gads. I hope oppressed middle eastern homosexuals are not looking for rescue by the Columbia Queer Alliance.
I’d point out, regarding Larry Summers, that everyone here seems to have digested the pop media account in which he was voted out by faculty over his remarks and little else. The truth of the matter — and a side trip to Wikipedia will help bear this out — is that Summers managed to spend most of his tenure at Harvard stepping on people’s toes.
He was generally described by faculty there as autocratic, managed a grotesque slip when he wrote an ironic memo defending the “impeccable” economic logic of paying underdeveloped countries money in exchange for toxic waste dumping from developed nations, and drove out the big-name (and likely profitable) Cornel West early on. Whatever you think of some of those items, they’re not the sort of thing that leads to a lasting term as a university president.
No, he’d been working hard at building ill will from the start; I suspect that his remarks were interpreted as uncharitably as they were because of that history of ticking off Harvard’s professors. In short, he wasn’t doing so great a job balancing the obligations of a university president, particularly the obligation to build decent working relationships with the faculty. The fact that his remark and the reaction to it were the first things the media decided to pay attention to doesn’t make their reductive “cause and effect” scenario the truth.
As to the nasty leftward tilt of the university…ever stepped into an Econ department? A political science department? You’re apt to find more libertarians and conservatives than liberals and leftists outside the humanities at most universities, and at some schools — the University of Chicago with its Committee on Social Thought — you’ll find them even there. And when you consider who tends to have the most financial (and thus, internicene political) sway at univerisites, it’s generally the sciences. Most of those folks don’t believe that the humanities need funding in the first place, and they’re quite happy with such illiberal policies as working R and D for major corporations, accepting Defense Department grants, and so forth.
As wth Summers, don’t let the fact that David Horowitz writes books blind you to the absurdly selective use of evidence or the overblown conclusions from that small pool of selected evidence stand in for, you know, a detailed and wide-ranging look at a complex issue.
From Andrew Sullivan’s blog comes the kind of hard to believe reaction from the Columbia Queer Alliance.
This is hardly “knee-jerk multiculturalism,” as even a cursory understanding of the historical use of terms like “homosexual” would demonstrate.
There are indeed innumerable example sof other eras and other cultures rejecting the fairly recent, modern, and distinctly Eruopean and American idea of three stable and determinate sexual orientations. African-American men who have male-male sex don’t identify themselves as homosexual; the ancient Greeks and Romans didn’t distinguish homosexuality from heterosexuality; hëll, there are plenty of people in America today who effectively believe that homosexuality isn’t real and that it instead represents a willful refusal of or a psychologically impaired expression of baseline, universally natural human heterosexuality.
Shouting, “But yer gay!” at someone who really doesn’t think of themselves as gay is not likely to help them…or you, really. It’s a good way to shout past other people, though.
Wrong. A public internet forum is no more a right at this address than it is anywhere — it’s a privilege Peter extends to everyone. And he isn’t entitled to extend that privilege, he has to purchase it. It isn’t in any constitution, and if it were our right, Peter would be responsible for making sure it stays open like a hospital taking in a dying patient.
So, again, are there any rights other than Columbia inviting the Iranian president it’s wrong to exercise?
“Wrong. A public internet forum is no more a right at this address than it is anywhere — it’s a privilege Peter extends to everyone. And he isn’t entitled to extend that privilege, he has to purchase it. It isn’t in any constitution, and if it were our right, Peter would be responsible for making sure it stays open like a hospital taking in a dying patient.”
You are either missing the point or being deliberatly obtuse, or maybe both.
It is hard to believe that you did not understand what I said and how it relates to this discussion.
Should I answer you the kind of answer you would give or a serious one?
The Mike answer is: I did not say that you have a right to be a troll on this blog, only that you have the alienable right to be a troll. The blog is PAD’s private property, so the decision whether to allow you to be a troll here belongs to him. However he can’t deny you thte right to be a troll beyond the boundries of his blog. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion afford you the right to be a troll both in public and in private if you choose. I would find that choice stupid wherever you practice it.
[good answer but not Mike-ish enough, I think]
The more serious answer (not that there’s much point it offering it to you) is that the invitation Columbia extended to Ahmadinejad is a specific exercise of their right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and probably one or two others I can’t think of right now because it’s late. I believe that in this specific instance Columbia made a mistake in choosing to exercise that right, but I do not dispute their right to make that choice in this instance or in any other.
———
You know what’s the sad thing Mike? This thread has at least three very serious and very interesting subjects that are worth discussing, but you are not really interested in any of them.
I’d point out, regarding Larry Summers, that everyone here seems to have digested the pop media account in which he was voted out by faculty over his remarks and little else. The truth of the matter — and a side trip to Wikipedia will help bear this out — is that Summers managed to spend most of his tenure at Harvard stepping on people’s toes.
Harvard can hire or fire people for any reason, as far as I’m concerned–if they do so for bad reasons they will ultimately pay the price by not being able to attract quality people. The market corrects itself.
No, what I object to is the idea that Summers–or even Ward Connelly, to use a sad example someone else brought up–should be invited to speak and then rejected simply because of pressure tactics. Some people can make a big show of their outrage over supposed repression–the ones who keep showing up on TV in front of millions to complain about how their voices have been silenced–but if the voice being silenced is one they disagree with, well, hey, that’s an entirely different matter, don’t you know.
But it’s actually been a good thing, since even some of Summer’s Harvard opponents have condemned what the University of CA did. Actually, it hasn’t been too easy to find folks who supported it. As I mentioned before, even the person who organized the attacks hoped that “Frankly, we’d like to see the story just die at this point.” Hardly the position of someone who knows they are on the right side, don’t you think?
There are indeed innumerable example sof other eras and other cultures rejecting the fairly recent, modern, and distinctly Eruopean and American idea of three stable and determinate sexual orientations. African-American men who have male-male sex don’t identify themselves as homosexual; the ancient Greeks and Romans didn’t distinguish homosexuality from heterosexuality; hëll, there are plenty of people in America today who effectively believe that homosexuality isn’t real and that it instead represents a willful refusal of or a psychologically impaired expression of baseline, universally natural human heterosexuality.
Shouting, “But yer gay!” at someone who really doesn’t think of themselves as gay is not likely to help them…or you, really. It’s a good way to shout past other people, though.
yes, I’m sure that the biggest concern facing gays…homosexu…people of the same gender having sex with each other in Iran. Call me crazy, but I’m just thinking that “the complexities of how sexual identity is constructed and understood in different parts of the world.” is not quite the issue that should be “most relevant to our concerns” when we are talking about a country where gays are executed. The Columbia Queer Alliance may not be able to “possibly claim to understand the multiple and diverse experiences of living with same-sex desires in Iran” but I think we can all understand what it’s like to be slowly garroted for no dámņ good reason. But that just my Eurocentric western bias toward murder–who among us can truly know what those odd people in other countries are feeling?
You contradict yourself yet again.
You didn’t answer my question. Your obvious options are to:
Instead you insist on portraying your failure to answer my question as succeeding in answering it. Why? What virtue is there in your flimsy, contradictory denials other than to shelter the wounds of your dysfunction? How can you stand yourself?
If they invite Carrot Top to speak, and then someone forms a petition to dump him after reviewing 5 minutes of his work, I don’t see the hardship in allowing the right to choose instead someone whose quality can be justified.
Well, Duncan Hunter (R-CA) is moving to cut all federal funding to Columbia U.
I guess freedom of speech does a have a price if you aren’t towing the GOP-approved line.
I guess freedom of speech does a have a price if you aren’t towing the GOP-approved line.
It makes you wonder what would happen if, say, President Musharraf, of Pakistan, were invited to speak at Columbia University.
I think their heads would explode.
Pervez is our “friend”, of course so we don’t want to piss him off or Pakistan might do something like harbor bin Laden or share nuclear secrets with Iran and North Korea.
Which is ironic, considering it was he who, after supporting the Taliban, decided to side us with in ousting it from Afghanistan after 9/11 because, according to Musharaff, Pakistan’s interests had changed, and so he didn’t want to piss us off. Funny how things have changed so much since then that the U.S. is now the one in the position of not wanting to pìšš øff another country that formerly supported the Taliban.
Mike, your trick is well known. Instead of engaging in a sensible and reasoned discussion you try to impose on it your dishonest, snarky, and illogical parameters. and then you declare victory based on terms mobody but yourself accepts. I do not recognize the term you try to impose on us. Nobody else on this thread recognizes your insane parameters or has any respect for what you say. Our host himself doesn’t recognize them or has any respect for you. So continue talking to yourself and winning every argument,, you have litttle use for me. I’ve enjoyed for a few days the kind of comedy only an idiot of your caliber can provide, and I’m ready to move on. I’m confident that every other person but yourself (the sane ones) got the point of my words a long time ago. And you never will, because for some strange reason you have wrapped your whole self esteem in holding on to absurd claims no matter what. So again, if this is the only way for you find joy in this world, knock yourself out.
PS
‘knock yourself out’ is…
All of which you say without citing anything I’ve said as an example. As far as you can’t, I am free to dismiss your accusations as arbitrary.
I haven’t implied any dominance over you — I asked a simple question. If you feel dominated simply by being asked a question, it sucks to be you.
“I am free to dismiss your accusations as arbitrary”
You have the right to do so, but it won’t make it any more true. It is your choice whether to exercise that right, but I don’t thing it is the correct thing to do. When every person you talk to thinks you’re a troll and an idiot it is time to reexamine the way you conduct yourself. But you have the right not to.
“I asked a simple question”
Not once since the time you came on this board did you ask a simple question. Both your questions and the way you treat the answers are motivated by your bizarre agenda, which, as far as I can tell, is to validate a certain delusional image of reality and of yourself in it.
The day you actually ask a simple question and treat the answer’s you receive with the sensibility they deserve will be a day for celebration. But I’m not holding my breath.
PS.
‘Holding your breath’ is an expression…
PPS.
Mike, I live next door to Ahmadinejad. Do you really think your antics have any effect on the quality of my life?
I am tremendously impressed with Micha’s ability to parse Mike’s statements, remain calm and respond intelligently. I confess to being at a disadvantage here: Most of the time, I have no idea what Mike is talking about; To mitigate that, I suspect Mike doesn’t know either. The best slant I can put on his posts is that he is exercising some sort of meta-language which has a deep coding: Words do not mean what appears in the dictionary, but some arbitrary (and unspecified) substituted value. If we accept that Mike has the substitution key, it is possible that some of his posts are logically sound – but very few of them are responsive to the issues addressed in the thread. I would have to compare Mike’s posts to some kind of verbal autoeroticism – I won’t ask or tell, but I would prefer that he keep it behind closed doors rather than flinging it at passers by.
…homina-hanh?
Dismissing your accusations as arbitrary is appropriate because you seem incapable of citing examples. n ≠ Rocket+Surgery
Considering the trail of your contradiction and inaccuracy established here, it’s probably past time to ask this: are you not well?
If my question was so abominable, why did you twice try to take credit for answering it?
Considering your record of ineptitude, good for him and his hold on power.
Putting this into simple language (which might make it unintelligible to Mike, Oh Dear), Micha’s statement that “Mike, I live next door to Ahmadinejad” is not any kind of a challenge or a statement of grand power. If one looks at a map, keeping the words “Iran” and “Israel” in mind, it is a statement of fact which Mike would be hard-pressed to disprove – kind of like me saying that I live next door to Pennsylvania: I do, because I live in Maryland. How provocative is that?
Micha: “I live next door to Ahmadinejad.”
That has all the earmarks of a Comedy Central sitcom. I’ll have my people call your people and we’ll put together a pitch over lunch.
“Putting this into simple language (which might make it unintelligible to Mike, Oh Dear),
Jeffrey, that may be the most beautiful thing other than my wife that I’ve seen today. And, seeeing as how I live in Pennsylvania, neighbor, I’ll try to keep the dog off your lawn. I’ll just have to get a dog….
Bill, just make sure your, ahem, people don’t insist on megalomaniac cats in the neighborhood again, all right? We would’ve sold that last one except fo that.
“Posted by: Bill Myers at September 26, 2007 03:43 PM
Micha: “I live next door to Ahmadinejad.”
That has all the earmarks of a Comedy Central sitcom. I’ll have my people call your people and we’ll put together a pitch over lunch.”
Yes. People tend to overlook the comedic and general entertainment potential of the middle east. We are now considering a reality TV show. We are going to put several mililon Jews and several million Palestinians in a small country and see how they interact. Every week audiences around the world will vote on who they thing are makes the most sympathetic victims, and the losers will get killed.
Jeffrey, concerning Mike’s post. I guess he is a guy who would wish death on a person he has an internet disagreement with.
Bill, sorry for the dark humor. It is not directed at you of course. I hope it didn’t come off that way.
jeffrey, so you live in Maryland… I hope you’re safe. I watch the Wire.
I was referring to the dedication to his culture Micha likes to take credit for. I never get an answer when I ask this, but your need to be asked always returns: Are you folks not well?
I didn’t say your vulnerability was good for me. Do you need instruction in distinguishing first-person from third-person perspective?
Micha: “Bill, sorry for the dark humor. It is not directed at you of course. I hope it didn’t come off that way.”
I don’t know why you’re apologizing. I got a big laugh out of it, and I needed that today.
Oh, OK.
To be honest, if not for Mike, more people here would remember how much of a rectum they think I am, so he does serve a valuable purpose.
Micha: This is not the first time you have apologized for minor or nonexistent affront: Given the usual standards here, perhaps you’re in the wrong room. Tact and good manners have their place, but I don’t know whether this is it.
Jeffrey, Micha’s way is his way. Frankly, it’s what so many of us like about him.
Tact and good manners should always have a place. If someone is being a dìçk, I’ve no problem calling them on it. But I also try to meet civility with civility. There’s no reason not to.
Actually, most of the time people on this board have been pretty civil toward each other. In fact, some have been quite friendly. We have only one establlished troll (although a very persistent one), but most others usually come from outside and leave pretty quickly.
In any case, I was in a pretty gloomy mood for a variety of reasons and I wasn’t sure if I wasn’t venting on people who didn’t deserve it. I was also wasn’t sure how this kind of dark humor would pass what little cultural differences exist between your culture and mine.
As for Mike, I think I’ve had enough of him. His response to my Ahmadinejad comment — which didn’t really require any response — annoyed me slightly more than his usual antics. It crossed a certain line, even he pretends otherwise. Maybe in his mind it didn’t? Oh well, what was I expecting?