Columbia Professors’ Moral Calculus: Scolding a Tyrant is Unacceptable. No Word on Whether They Thinking Killing Gay People is Okay or Not.
Lee Bollinger, they guy who stood up for inviting Mad Mahmoud to his university, then gave him perhaps the only dressing-down he’s ever had in the United States is taking serious heat from a good number of his faculty.
What’s he done that’s a problem? Well, he publicly dressed down a tyrant and, goodness knows, we can’t have that sort of thing happening on a college campus. Here’s a quote from a couple of the heartsick educators.
“I think for most people the Ahmadinejad incident was an occasion that brought out a lot of discomfort,” said Wayne Proudfoot, a religion professor. “It seemed clear to me that the language he used in introducing Ahmadinejad was intended to, and had the effect of, placating, appeasing and being a message to conservative critics.”
Eric Foner, an American history professor who was one of the most outspoken professors at yesterday’s meeting, read aloud some of Mr. Bollinger’s remarks to Mr. Ahmadinejad, and added, “This is the language of warfare at a time when the administration of our country is trying to whip up Iran, and to my mind is completely inaccurate.”
Yes, because it’s infinitely worse to placate or “appease” a conservative critic than one who insists there are no gay people in Iran or who presides over the hanging and stoning of women who defend themselves from rape. Of course one should never say a cross word to a man who can stand and, with a straight face, proclaim that there are no gay people in Iran and that his country is a haven of peace and love and understanding.
I’m out of patience with these lickspittles who can only find courage to criticize the people who are safe to criticize. There’s absolutely no chance that anyone on the campus of Columbia University will ever suffer any ill consequences from criticizing a conservative or George W. Bush. None. Zero. That’s why they do it. They pride themselves on being able to “eloquently model how to disagree” and for showing courage while risking absolutely nothing. Nothing bad is likely to happen to them for this feeble little stunt but it makes them look good to their Bush-hating friends. They get their leftist cred polished up a few notches and everything’s okay.
Except everything is not okay; not even a little. More after the jump.
Just yesterday, a high-ranking member of Iraq’s parliament said that gays should be executed or tortured; probably both. That little bit of frankness was elicited after some of our less-enlightened peers in the British government expressed interest in a couple recent cases. One involved a couple of young men, not quite 18, who were publicly executed for being homosexual. The other involved, a young girl was murdered by her brother for being pregnant. Whose baby was it? Well, it was her brother’s as it happens and the incident shamed him so that he hung her. He was let go after he said he was really, really sorry.
I have to assume that sort of thing is just hunky-dory with those professors, else they might have had an arch word or two about the man who is trying to spread the “law” that insisted those children had to die across the whole world. Where is their condemnation for that, or is their heart so poisoned by partisan hate and overweening pride that they’re simply deaf to the cries of the tormented in Iran? Where are their much-ballyhooed principles when there’s more than the applause of their peers at stake?
I fear that their principles have gone the way of their common sense. They lost both a long time ago, when they decided that standing up for the oppressed and defenseless meant a whole lot less to them than a little public grandstanding and the warm fuzzies from all their leftist friends.
I’d like to know, from any of the Columbia 100, why they hate gay people and young women so much. I want to know why they can find words of condemnation for Lee Bollinger but none for Mad Mahmoud. I want to know if they believe that the girls in their class are second-class citizens and, if not, why they’re willing to belive that the girls in Iran are.
I want to know why they can only find courage to condemn a man who can do them no harm at all while giving their tacit blessing to a man who wants to see them dead and is working on the means to make that happen.
Mostly, though, I want to know what they hell they’re thinking.
No related posts.
Category: Featured, Moonbat Nonsense, No More Tyrants
Well said! And where's the Bush administration on this issue? It's safe for them to criticize Iran – but when do they ever criticize Saudi Arabia for how they treat gays?
Jim, you have a point. I think it's a point for a different day, but it is a point I've made before. We need to hold the Saudis much more accountable, especially because we're about elbow-deep in their country.
It's not especially safe for the administration to continue to criticize Iran. At some point, we're going to start demanding that the action match the talk. That's far from the safe position.
Remember, the Clinton administration never called the genocide in Rwanda a genocide. They were afraid that if they did, we Americans would demand that they actually take some action. There's a very real risk to continuing the tough talk.
I mean, it's safe to criticize Iran – but criticizing Saudi Arabia would actually take courage. They have business ties with us that go far beyond the amount of oil they own.
I really wish the Bush administration would show real courage, and take on the Saudis for their many Islamofascist traits. Don't you? Thanks for your leadership on this issue.
Well, OK then. Snark aside, that's good. I'm glad you have previously addressed that issue.
Sure they do, but we can find business elsewhere, right? The thing about business is there's always more of it.
I do want the Bush admininstration to deal with the Saudis (run a search on "Saudi terrorist" on my site and hit the first two posts). Don't assume that conservatives are all about giving the Saudis a pass while schwacking Mad Mahmoud. It's just not correct.
nice bit or ironic rhetoric… also nice to see you defending gays and single mothers
Another thing you've seen me do more than once here…
Why the surprise?
Never mind Saui Arabia. Does anyone remember when the US Supreme court struck down the state of Texas's law against sodomy ??
Anyone ?
2001
Where was the right wing at that time demanding fair treatment for gays.
One thing (amonst many others) that all social conservatives agree on no matter what their religion is that homosexuality is wrong and should be punished.
Indeed, but surely you're not conflating a democratic process where the people of a state decided to prohibit a specific action with crushing people under walls and stoning them int he public square, are you?
Criticizing Israel can keep a professor from getting a job ( Juan Cole )or getting tenure for a job he already has (Norman Finkelstein ) , or flat get you fired like Chris Tofolo
People hate THE LITTLE PIECE OF FILTH WHO STOLE THE WHITE HOUSE TWICE because he is not only a compulsive liar he is ignorant and uncaring as to consequences and cultures, who recklessly stirred the pot of chaos in that area of the world and wound up commiting numerous war crimes, endangering the national security of the United States and creating more anti-American terrorists all around the globe. He also will be remembered as the president who, in the name of bringing democracy to the world, trampled it at home.
tommo – Saying it more often doesn't make it true. Really.
Yes Jimmie I am. Simply because hatred of homoseuals in Texas and muslims countries does not justify the actions of either.
You act like sending a homosexual to jail in Texas was some sort of minor inconveniece instead of 10 years in hell.
John – You really do have to be kidding me. Seriously.
"I have to assume that sort of thing is just hunky-dory with those professors"
Oh, do you now? Why not just look at what the prof referenced in the article, Eric Foner, has already said about gays? Here he makes a good case for gay marriage (or at least against a common argument against it):
http://www.offoffoff.com/opinion/2004/foner_3.php
How do you feel about gay marriage? Is your position closer to his or Iran's?
Well, isn't that special. He wrote a paper.
Meanwhile, he's actively supporting a man who is actually killing gay people. I'd say his actions are not only reprehensible but cynical and hypocritical, too.
Unless, of course, he believes that only gay people who live outside of Islamist countries really deserve to live.
As for my opinions on gay marriage, I believe they're irrelevant to the discussion. I believe that gay people should remain alive and have the ability to make their case in an open discussion where the outcome can be decided by their fellow citizens.
You know, kind of like democracy.
Jimmie: "Well, isn’t that special. He wrote a paper."
You didn't even follow the link, did you? It's an interview, not a paper.
"Meanwhile, he’s actively supporting a man who is actually killing gay people. I’d say his actions are not only reprehensible but cynical and hypocritical, too."
How is he "actively supporting" Amadinnerjacket? He didn't say *anything* that directly supports Iran's policies toward gays. Criticizing aspects of Bollinger's rant does not necessarily mean one supports Iran. You are the cynical one, to think that a man known for his grasp of the progress of freedom in the US (Foner) supports sharia.
"As for my opinions on gay marriage, I believe they’re irrelevant to the discussion."
They are just as relevant, if not more so, than what you accuse Foner of. You claim he must hate gays, so I showed you evidence that he in fact supports gay marriage. Be a man and admit you may have jumped to a wrong conclusion. Be a man and admit that your opinion of gay marriage is probably closer to the official Iranian one than Foner's.
Do you even know what the 100 at Columbia were specifically objecting to in Bollinger's speech? I don't; it's not really spelled out in the article. But I think it had more to do with things like war with Iran. It certainly had no bearing on gays.
I don't care what he thinks about gay marriage. Whether a gay person can marry seems significantly less critical than whether a gay Iranian will live long enough to contemplate marriage. Foner apparently doesn't believe that calling out Mad Mahmoud for his barbarism is appropriate. He'd rather play silly political games than stand on the side of real people facing real risks. Well, goodie goodie gumdrops for him. I'm sure it lets him sleep all warm and cuddly.
I have also read President Bollinger's remarks and found nothing in them that was innaccurate. I'd like to know what Foner thought was so egregious that it worth standing on the side of Mad Mahmoud to denounce.
Do read the comment above yours for my position on gay marriage. And I'll add a little bit to it for you. I will never, ever criticize any speech given by any person that is critical of a repressive and murderous tyrant. Ever. Would that the appeasing professors at Columbia had at least that tiny sliver of courage.
OK, here's the full text that the 109 Columbia profs signed:
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/?q=node/28109
It really concerns internal university issues. Of their 4 main points, only #3 concerns Bollinger's remarks to Amadinawhackjob. Here's that part:
Nothing about supporting Amadingdong's repressive policies.
In fact, a little digging would have unearthed this from Foner, published the day Amadouchebag came to town:
So there ya go, eh? He doesn't need you to put words in his mouth (Jimmie: "Foner apparently doesn’t believe that calling out Mad Mahmoud for his barbarism is appropriate").
As for Bollinger's original comments, part of the following is not true:
"While your predecessor government was instrumental in providing the U.S. with intelligence and base support in its 2001 campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan, your government is now undermining American troops in Iraq by funding, arming and providing safe transit to insurgent leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr and his forces."
Mookie has always been critical of Iran, unlike our major current Shi'ite party ally in Iraq, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, who were based in Tehran and helped in by the Iranian gov't. Some of Mookie's men have gone off the rez and may be getting materiel from Iran, but not him.
He went on to say:
"In a briefing before the National Press Club earlier this month, General David Petraeus reported that arms supplies from Iran, including 240 mm rockets and explosively formed projectiles, are contributing to 'a sophistication of attacks that would by no means be possible without Iranian support.'"
This was indeed a hot news story… but still hasn't been proven to be true.
"A number of Columbia graduates and current students are among the brave members of our military who are serving or have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. They, like other Americans with sons, daughters, fathers, husbands and wives serving in combat, rightly see your government as the enemy."
No, wrong, our enemy in Iraq has always been Iraqi Sunnis, not Shi'ites (and certainly not Iranian Shi'ites).
"You continue to defy this world body by claiming a right to develop peaceful nuclear power, but this hardly withstands scrutiny when you continue to issue military threats to neighbors."
Iran hasn't attacked another country for hundreds of years. It hasn't made even a shade of a real move to attack Israel (I can't imagine he was referring to any other country, even though he used the plural). And they are indeed within their rights, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to develop peaceful nuclear power.
"And why have you chosen to make the people of your country vulnerable to the effects of international economic sanctions and threaten to engulf the world with nuclear annihilation?"
What the hell is he talking about with the global nuke annhilation crap?! Please show me the Amaboobiejob quote about that!
So when you say "I have also read President Bollinger’s remarks and found nothing in them that was innaccurate", you are clearly not as informed as you might think you are.
A few points, nanny.
1) You can not find someone's statements "reprehensible" and yet want to have a civil debate with them. The two ideas are anathema to each other. How else do you treat an uncivil and intransigent barbarian but with incivility?
2) Mookie has not, in fact, always been critical of Iran. He has visited Iran several times, including once when the surge first began and our troops were making very real and dramatic progress against his al-Sadr Brigades. He was trained in Iran and supplied from there.
3) We do have conclusive proof, as do the British, that weapons have been transiting from Iran to Iraq. We have captured Iranian officials who were specifically arranging those transfers. We have Iranian documents confirming these transactions. We have copious evidence. You just don't wish to admit it.
4) Iran actually did attack the United States in 1979. It has been attacking Iraq since 2003 (even the interim government of Iraq back then made public statements asking Iran to stop trying to destabilize the government). Even if that were not true, it is lunacy to allow a person to obtain the very weapons that will allow them to carry out their threats. Are you really that certain that he would not use the nuclear weapons he is working to get.
And let me say here that we know, from the Iran-friendly IAEA, that Iran now has 3000 centrifuges in operation. Those centrifuges are not used for "peaceful" nuclear power.
And if you really don't know that Mad Mahmoud has on numerous occasions threatened nuclear attack on Israel and the United States, then you're not in a good place to call me misinformed.
"You can not find someone’s statements “reprehensible” and yet want to have a civil debate with them."
Well, you and I are having a civil conversation, aren't we?
"Mookie has not, in fact, always been critical of Iran."
You are conflating the country of Iran with the gov't of Iran. He has indeed always been critical of the gov't (feel free to try to prove otherwise). The Iranian city of Qom is the epicenter of Shi'ism– it's a shrine city, almost like Vatican City– and he has been there for religious purposes.
"He has visited Iran several times, including once when the surge first began"
No, he was only *rumored* to have been there at that time.
"He was trained in Iran and supplied from there."
Now you're totally talking out of your orifice. What are you saying he was trained in and supplied with? He's a cleric, not a commando! And he has been slamming the other Shi'ite religious parties who really were coddled by Iran (see the Badr Corps) for years and years.
"We do have conclusive proof, as do the British, that weapons have been transiting from Iran to Iraq."
Show it to me.
"We have captured Iranian officials who were specifically arranging those transfers."
I hope you're not thinking of the 9 dudes who were suspected of doing so, but who were recently released!
"We have Iranian documents confirming these transactions. We have copious evidence."
You have copious conjecture. Read the bottom half of this article and tell me only Shi'ites use EPF's:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2007/07022…
"Iran actually did attack the United States in 1979."
And the CIA overthrew their democratically-elected leader in 1953 to install the Shah, who was an asshole. In any case, Iran hasn't attacked anyone outside their borders for hundreds of years.
"It has been attacking Iraq since 2003 (even the interim government of Iraq back then made public statements asking Iran to stop trying to destabilize the government)."
No, WE have been attacking Iraq since 2003. What exactly did the interim gov't mean by "destabiilize"?
"Are you really that certain that he would not use the nuclear weapons he is working to get."
That's an excellent question. I think not, unless they really wanted to be bombed into a post-apocolyptic wasteland in their turn. Israel itself has a couple hundred nuclear warheads, not to mention our own massive stockpile. You should also note that the presidency of Iran is a largely ceremonial role– the real power (including the nuke portfolio) rests with the Supreme Jurisprudent, Ali Khameini, who has held that nuclear weapons are not kosher, so to speak, with Islam. If they get it, they will probably– like India, Pakistan, etc.– not use it but hold that card for various negotiation tables.
"And let me say here that we know, from the Iran-friendly IAEA, that Iran now has 3000 centrifuges in operation. Those centrifuges are not used for “peaceful” nuclear power."
That depends how– and if– you use them. From the NYT on the latest IAEA report:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/world/middleeas…
You are convinced the IAEA is inept? Or R U just pissy that they're not confirming your fondest desires? Reminds me of when they said Saddam didn't have any nukes– that made conservatives get pissy, too– but they were right.
"Mad Mahmoud has on numerous occasions threatened nuclear attack on Israel and the United States"
Total B.S. If you're referring to the supposed "wipe Israel off the map" quote, context is everything. He was referencing an old quote by Ayatollah Khomeini, who "swept [the Shah's regime] from the pages of history". Yet Iranian revolutionaries didn't need to wipe Iran off the map in order to make that happen– it was a political situation. To take it to mean a nuclear attack, you must go into the land of pure imagination. And he hasn't said a damn thing about attacking the US, either.