Columbia University + Freedom of Speech

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Sep 25 2007, 02:22 PM) [snapback]517588[/snapback]</div>

I thought that the previous comment about young minds being turned to mush was a bit paternalistic, but was going to let it go. Your comment confirmed my belief.

 

And if they think Admanjani got applause, they should listen to the response to Bollinger's intro.

 

Funny how, right after Aquavelvahad (I LIKE it!) spoke, there were no posts from those (e.g., Berman, Hagan) who had "guessed" that Mahmoud would mop the floor with the "spineless" Bollinger. Maybe reeling in shock?

IsrAmer said it: Aquavelvahad made an utter fool of himself trying to dance around the hard questions, and had to try to allay his embarrassment with diversionary forays into history and theology.

(Gulp!) I must agree with Fearless Leader Bush that the episode only shows what a great country the U.S. is.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jack Kelly @ Sep 25 2007, 03:15 PM) [snapback]517618[/snapback]</div>

You misquoted me. I said:

And no, I'm not "reeling in shock". I am recoiling in disgust. Because I was right.

Do we really think that 15 minutes of insult, cleverly worded and delivered before a friendly audience, is an effective weapon against a religious fanatic who has stated his desire to bring on his religion's version of Armageddon?

Bollinger sounded like a cynical teen in a modern-day sitcom, with the tart and snappy little speech that made the audience say "What a burn!" If we needed to have any more proof of the impact of South Park on the culture it was evident in the moronic response of the Columbia students. Do you really think anyone in that Ivy League audience learned anything new? If they did, the condition of our institutions of higher learning is worse than I thought.

Its typical of those in academia to think that a well argued debate, with winning on points for your proposition, is a stellar achievement. And had Bollinger engaged in respectful debate, and scored the points, it would have played as well here. But all he did was give fuel to his popularity campaign among the Muslims.

The President of Iran spoke at Columbia, spoke at the UN on the same day President Bush did, and was interviewed on major news shows. In the blitz of publicity, the President of Iran assumed a stature he does not deserve, and Bollinger's mistreatment of him ... you heard that right ... is not only ineffective, but shameful.

I have an Iranian co-worker who fled Iran when the Revolution happened, and he hates the current government. He wants a free and democratic Iran. But he was shocked and saddened by the treatment of his home country's President on a major US University. Just as most of us were outraged by Hugo Chavez's characterizations of our President, so moderate and ex-expatriate Iranians are shocked at the mistreatment of their president.

Is this what the Left means when it says we should 'talk to our enemies more'? Insult them in front of a cheering audience? Is that diplomacy?

This was a mistake from the beginning. It made a hero of President Ahmadinejad for standing up to the American bullies.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 25 2007, 09:09 PM) [snapback]517761[/snapback]</div>

But the bullies sure enjoyed the production....

Then again the concept of winning hearts and minds is lost on the bullies (it is too nuanced). The bully's version is something more along the lines of if you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.... Until one of them detonates a suicide vest or car or truck bomb.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jack Kelly @ Sep 25 2007, 03:15 PM) [snapback]517618[/snapback]</div>

The Los Angeles Times said it best in yesterday's editorial:

 

From http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/i...677097420070926

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 25 2007, 08:09 PM) [snapback]517761[/snapback]</div>

Wrong. Since we all knew in advance that Iran would control, as much as they can, news getting back to Iran (except for foreign papers?) of what M.A. said and what was said to him---that is, mainly by controlling TV coverage---we knew M.A. would come off with increased stature to Iranians.

He did not enhance his stature with most Americans nor objective non-Americans (e.g., Europeans) who received a correct translation with their news.

Some Columbia students think the Palestinians are getting the short end of the stick, vis-a-vis not only Israel and the U.S., but many other countries strongly influenced by what we do (and demand others do). Many other Americans, myself included, also think it's a pretty one-sided struggle, the political machinations of Fatah/Hamas aside. There is little public discourse to serve as an outlet for this displeasure. I do not think the brains of Columbia studens who seem to be protesting the Palestinian status quo have turned to mush.

If I misrepresented fshagan, I apologize.