Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

"Of course we'd invite Hitler to speak"

So says the Dean of Columbia. Sadly, no follow-up question asking how he might react should der Fuhrer get a little tipsy at the post-speech cocktail party and order his band of traveling storm troopers to stuff a dozen or so gypsies, a gay couple, and 6 million Jews into one of the caterer’s mobile convection ovens.

Which is a shame, really, because I think there’s half a chance we’d have been treated to a bit about “respecting cultural differences.”

****
Related.

146 Replies to “"Of course we'd invite Hitler to speak"”

  1. Jeffersonian says:

    But Larry Summers…well, you gotta draw the line somewhere.

  2. Tim P says:

    Acedemia. Ofcourse they’d invite Hitler to speak! Any opportunity to stick it in the eye of Bush, republicans, so called conservatives, America and all it stands for in general and just about anybody who actually values western values. Just like they’d call a crucifix in urine art or protest Donald Rumsfeld or Larry Summers even setting foot on any campus.

    Academia is truly the Gramscian ground zero.

  3. happyfeet says:

    Tenure is accorded for the common good of the academy and society. Tenured faculty members, to the benefit of society as a whole, are free to teach, do research, publish and participate fully in civic and institutional life. When necessary, and often it is, they are free to rise to the defense of the outspoken or in defense of academic freedom. Without that freedom, we would all still be required to argue that the world was flat. Neither the Soviet Union nor Nazi Germany had tenure. There was a reason.*

  4. Nathan says:

    This bit about letting everyone have their say in an open forum and whatnot would be fine, if I thought there was a snowball’s chance in hell that someone like Jonah Goldberg or John Stossel or Don Rumsfeld would get the same treatment. As it is, this has to ring hollow even in liberal ears.

  5. Merovign says:

    What Nathan said.

    Free and open exchange of ideas is great, unless it’s a bald-faced lie.

    Which, in the case of Columbia, it demonstrably is.

    Though, the really hilarious thing is, it does help show what kinds of ideas the academics REALLY find objectionable, and racism and genocide obviously don’t make the short list.

  6. It is ironic and telling that the same Columbia University stood by while Gilchrist of the Minutemen was shouted down and not allowed to speak. I guess by all sides it only includes certain sides.

    Ahmadinejad is a sociopath and any appearance anywhere in the U.S. Including the the UN will only be manipulated by him to his advantage.

  7. What Tim P said, with the addendum that there is a French phrase for it: “épater les bourgeois”

    I read some of John Fowles’s book of essays, Wormholes, a while back. He repeated an intellectual watchword that explains a lot of Columbia’s disgraceful conduct: “Ideas are the only homeland”. With an attitude like that, you can’t expect much in the way of patriotism from them.

  8. happyfeet says:

    “I believe strongly in continuously working on building the best intellectual life you can.” – Lee Bollinger, my emphasis

  9. This arabian newspaper takes a quick poll of Columbia’s students. The faithful are supportive of having Ahmadinejad speak, the infidels are ready for a debate, and the pigs hiding behind trees are opposed.

  10. soonergooner says:

    What are the odds of one of the better meaning columbia students give up their seat for HIRSI ALI?

  11. JFH says:

    “Neither the Soviet Union nor Nazi Germany had tenure. There was a reason”

    Yeah, and they didn’t have basic civil rights and economic freedom either… which do you think was more important in the growth, wealth, and value of a nation.

  12. clarice says:

    Columbia has a rich history o f this sort of thing–and did invite Hitler’s men to speak and did continue exchanges with German universities after they’d been purged of Jews. It’s ME dept is an anti-Israel cesspool, and yet it continues to get Jewish support. Go figure.
    Bollinger refused to stand up for free speech at Michigan when it adopted one of those ridiculous speech codes.

  13. […] Happyfeet, it’s grotesque.  And probably disturbing.  But no more so than the invitations… Posted by Serr8d @ 3:17 am | Trackback Share […]

  14. wishbone says:

    To borrow one of Jeff’s sayings: Hitler is as dead as a boot. Along with most of the thugs who ran the Soviet Union. Time draweth nigh for Castro and Mugabe.

    So, let’s make it easier for Columbia. Is there anyone you wouldn’t invite?

    Other than ROTC recruiters.

    Early Vegas odds have Limbaugh, Rove, and John Howard at even money.

  15. Tman says:

    For those scoring at home, Jeffersonian has pretty much won the thread in the first comment.

  16. happyfeet says:

    I think the allure of “speaking at Columbia” is sorta not what it was after the way they treated that Gilchrist guy. Conservatives should find better uses of their time than speaking at universities, I think. It’s all kabuki at best, days are. But I’m feeling cynical just now. Perilously close to needing me some A*Teens videos.

  17. agip says:

    Actually, no one was ever required to argue that the world was flat. That’s a lie concocted in the 18th century by French historian Jean-Antoine Letronne and spat out upon the English-speaking peoples by one Washington Irving in his fantasy history of Columbus’ discovery of the New World.

    The fact of the matter is, Europeans have known the world was a sphere since before Aristotle, they never rejected the idea, and Ptolemaic-Aristotelian cosmology and physics (what Galileo argued against in favor of the Copernican system) REQUIRES a spherical earth.

    So knock it off already.

  18. dicentra says:

    Columbus’s mistake was that he thought the earth had a smaller diameter than it actually did. If the American continent weren’t there, he and his men probably would have starved to death before getting to India.

  19. dicentra says:

    “Ideas are the only homeland”

    Well, isn’t that the realm of the Classical Liberal? One’s patriotism in the U.S. has less to do with the dirt or the blood than with the Enlightenment values that are honored thereon. If this speck of land went totalitarian and the Chinese went Classical Liberal, we’d move our allegiance over there and do it with ideograms instead of an alphabet.

  20. psychologizer says:

    Pedant’s note: the “middle class” that’s shocked in the definition of “épater les bourgeois” that Sanity links to above is “middle” in the British sense, i.e., not quite the Queen, but almost — the Dean of Columbia, say — the same “middle” that America’s ruling class ponts to when it calls itself the “upper middle” (whereas those of us who merely get paid a lot but don’t rule anybody freely call ourselves rich, because lying about it doesn’t get us anything).

    Let’s not pretend there’s any of that kind of épatering going on here.

  21. The Thin Man says:

    If I were in the US, I’d attend Columbia that day and give Mahmoud a nice big wet french kiss.
    Maybe even feel him up a little.

    Lets see him spin that one for the boys back home.

    And by the way, somebody needs to tell Miss Mahmoud that she’s NOT a an Autumn!

  22. Enoch_Root says:

    They can invite Hitler to speak all they want. They could also prop up his corpse and pose with it. I don’t think he has a whole lot to say.

  23. Enoch_Root says:

    and I finally figured out who Jeff is: Serpico!

  24. Bender Bending Rodriguez says:

    Many students said they also were looking forward to confronting the president about his country’s poor human right’s record.

    “He will be questioned on human rights violations against women and homosexuals, and the treatment of academics, and his nuclear policy,” said Josh Mathew, 20, a political science major from New Jersey.

    Gosh, I wonder how that will go?

    COLUMBIA STUDENT: What about your regime’s human rights violations against women and homosexuals?

    A’JAD: Mostly they are lies by the Zionist media and Satan Bush and Darth Vader Cheney.

    COLUMBIA STUDENTS, en masse: Yaaaaaaay!

    A’JAD: Besides, Bush’s America oppresses women and homosexuals, too, so who are you to judge?

    COLUMBIA STUDENTS, en masse: America sucks! America sucks!

    A”JAD: And we have different customs in Iran than in America. The world is diverse, and that is what makes it beautiful.

    COLUMBIA STUDENTS, en masse: (dreamily) Ahhhhhhhh…

  25. Lost My Cookies says:

    Ok then, who’s up for getting tased?

    I would, but it might short-circut my blackberry and then how would I read townhall?

  26. TheGeezer says:

    They can invite Hitler to speak all they want. They could also prop up his corpse and pose with it. I don’t think he has a whole lot to say.

  27. TheGeezer says:

    They can invite Hitler to speak all they want. They could also prop up his corpse and pose with it. I don’t think he has a whole lot to say.

  28. TheGeezer says:

    They can invite Hitler to speak all they want. They could also prop up his corpse and pose with it. I don’t think he has a whole lot to say.

    Columbia invited Hitler to speak in 1933, when he still had a few years to live and needed validation from academia for his monstrous philosophy. Columbia is merely continuing a tradition of asking amoral monsters to speak, so it can condone the most recent intellectually fashionable version of inhumanity.

    That happens a lot when you are morally unmoored.

  29. TheGeezer says:

    I swear I did not blockquote three times! Maybe a lack. of. coffee?

  30. Slartibartfast says:

    Put.The.Mouse.Down.

    I’ve got some nice Kona brewing, here. I’ll share.

  31. Brett says:

    That would be a poor history, Clarice

  32. Aldo says:

    When Dean John Coatsworth smugly asserted that he would invite Hitler to speak at Columbia I wish that Fox News had followed up by asking, “But would you invite Donald Rumsfeld?”

    That would have put him in the position of trying to explain the BDS-addled logic of giving terrorists and holocaust deniers preference over Republicans in academia, or answering that he would allow Rumsfeld to speak, immediately making him a pariah at Columbia who no longer gets invited to cocktail parties.

  33. Semanticleo says:

    WTF are you people afraid of?

    Imagine what the US would look like if your crew had veto power over contrary viewpoints.(Tehran?)

    “We have met the enemy, and he is us”.

  34. B Moe says:

    ““Ideas are the only homeland”. With an attitude like that, you can’t expect much in the way of patriotism from them.”

    That is patriotism. I feel very little allegiance to the actual soil and rocks of North America, my love and loyalty is to the ideas the United States were founded on: freedom, opportunity, and the rights of the individual. Some people just have a different set of ideas to which they are loyal. They are patriotic to a different homeland, in other words.

  35. B Moe says:

    Imagine what the US would look like if your crew had veto power over contrary viewpoints.(DailyKos?)

    Fixed that for you.

  36. Jeff G. says:

    WTF are you people afraid of?

    Imagine what the US would look like if your crew had veto power over contrary viewpoints.(Tehran?)

    Who’s afraid? We KNOW his contrary viewpoints. The guy has called for the extermination of an entire country. Waits for the day when he can do it, in fact. And he is currently complicit in the murder of US troops trying to help Iraq form a representative democracy.

    Why the fuck do YOU want to legitimize him?

    Personally, I think he should be arrested the moment he sets foot in the country. If we really have evidence that Iran is funding terrorists and sending in personnel and equipment and weapons to stage attacks on US soldiers, there’s no reason not to — other than fear of creating a diplomatic incident.

    But Ahmanidijiji should have thought about that before he presumed to set foot on US soil.

    Just my opinion, but there you have it.

    So you see, we aren’t afraid of anything inherent in his message. We’re repulsed by it, and bored by its utter intransigence. But such a protest is rich coming from a guy whose ideological fellow travelers won’t let Larry fucking Summers speak. I mean, he’s a liberal. One of your own. And he’s been purged.

    Get your own house in order, is my advice.

  37. Semanticleo says:

    “Why the fuck do YOU want to legitimize him?”

    The surest way to legitimize him, is to exaggerate his importance.

    If Shicklegruber were to speak Stateside prior to WWII, mayhaps his carpet-chewing and spittle enhancement would have persuaded a Republican Congress to allow the Democratic President to give military aid to Churchill. So if you really want to bomb the shit out of Syria, North Korea and Iran, maybe you should do advance work for Abe’s appearance.

  38. Slartibartfast says:

    As opposed to, for instance, completely ignoring everything he has to say?

    Noted, cleo.

  39. Slartibartfast says:

    Cleo is, as they say over on the Left-hand side, an Ahmadinejad apologist.

  40. Pablo says:

    The surest way to legitimize him, is to exaggerate his importance.

    Which you could do by giving him a podium to speak from as though he perhaps had something worthwhile to say.

    Duh.

  41. Slartibartfast says:

    Now, having said that, I’m going to emulate cleo and not respond to any further comments on this thread. Ta.

  42. mishu says:

    The surest way to legitimize him, is to exaggerate his importance.

    You mean like honoring him with a speaking engagement.

  43. Semanticleo says:

    “You mean like honoring him with a speaking engagement.”

    No. Like throwing a snitfit over his speech as though we feared it.

  44. wishbone says:

    ‘Cleo–gotta give you credit, that was one helluva an attempt at the “Ignore it and it will go away” talking point.

    If you are not John Murtha or on his staff, you should put your resume in the mail today.

    It’s not that we’re afraid, we’re just more inclined to take Looney Tunes leaders of theocracies a little more literally than you when they threaten to wipe another country off the map. A country that is 1/16 the population of Iran with whom there is no shared border.

    So WTF is President Arglebargle afraid of?

    And even the useless dilberts of the IAEA don’t believe the Iranians. There is only one use for the level of uranium enrichment from cascades of thousands of centrifuges. It begins with “b”.

  45. mishu says:

    Well, shit. Why not invite him to speak before a joint session of congress? To prove we’re not afraid of him. We can all puff our chests out and grab our gonads while listening.

  46. mishu says:

    BTW, Miss Cleo, shouldn’t Columbia allow all branches of the United States Military to come on campus and ask students if they’d like to join?

  47. Semanticleo says:

    “allow all branches of the United States Military to come on campus and ask students if they’d like to join?”

    If they espouse your POV, it’s OK. But if they are the NYT-7, absolutely not.

  48. wishbone says:

    “…ask students if they’d like to join…”

    “If they espouse your POV”

    Anyone else understand where the POV figures into this equation. “cleo, you have once again surpassed yourself in incoherence. And that ain’t easy.

  49. B Moe says:

    “If Shicklegruber were to speak Stateside prior to WWII, mayhaps his carpet-chewing and spittle enhancement would have persuaded a Republican Congress to allow the Democratic President to give military aid to Churchill.”

    And if you were to ever actually read the whole thread and links, you might not constantly make suck an idiotic ass of yourself.

  50. Rob Crawford says:

    Who said, that, cleo? Are you capable of debating anything but strawmen?

    Fer crissake, at one university we have people throwing a fit because Rumsfeld’s going to work nearby, while at another one we have people declaring how “brave” they are to let a murderous dictator to speak as their guest.

    You know those dead civilians the left claims to be concerned about in Iraq? You know, the bombed markets, mosques, and schools? Ahmadenijad is behind most of those. If you really object to war, then you should object to him. He leads the government that supplies weapons to Hezbollah; he bolsters the Syrian government that murders Lebanese politicians who get a bit too independent.

    He’s the head of a government that’s had a hand in terrorism literally around the world.

    We’re not “afraid” of him. We’re disgusted by him. We thought that US universities wouldn’t allow themselves to be soiled by the presence of such a monster, hell, we’d prefer they held themselves to that standard. Instead, they roll over, bearing their guts in a the classical canine submissive posture.

    If you think it’s good that our universities fete such monsters while despising our own institutions, well, there’s nothing I can do for you. Just don’t tell me it’s a good thing, because by my lights, it’s a horrific state of affairs.

  51. ushie says:

    I like how Semanticleo shifts from Amanamdijijiji and the invitation to speak at Columbia to the NYT-7. Who had their right to free speech crushed by being published in the New York Times.

    Huh?

  52. wishbone says:

    Minor historical niggling:

    At what point prior to WWII was Churchill Prime Minister?

    Because that “peace in our time” remark would have resembled something more akin to a Junior Soprano “go shit in your hat” moment.

  53. happyfeet says:

    I think it’s the NYT-5 now, no?

  54. Semanticleo says:

    “there’s nothing I can do for you”

    Preventing, those you find disgusting, from speaking, disallows others from seeing, first hand, the object of scorn, warts and all.

    It is a slippery slope which some justify by using other examples of suppression, thereby conferring legitimacy to the practice of arbitrary censorship.

    Iran is a third-rate Nation we should watch, but many who want to accept that we truly believe democratic principles, might see our
    ‘disgust’ as fear.

  55. happyfeet says:

    The number of Americans speaking at Iranian Universities reflects a nation living in abject, pissing-itself terror then I guess.

  56. Old Dad says:

    The First Amendment is a wonderful thing, but I’m under no obligation to offerf anyone my livingroom in which to exercise it.

    No, I prefer that genocidal sociopaths stay off my property and out of earshot of my children.

  57. B Moe says:

    …but many who want to accept that we truly believe democratic principles, might see our ‘disgust’ as fear…”

    And some, who don’t have a logical leg to stand on, might resort to using the accusation of “fear” as an easy way out of an argument they are losing. Over. And over. And over.

    Take away the words fear and the Progressive movement would be struck mute in any foreign policy discussion. Do you think they will ever figure out their juvenile little attempt at reverse psychology isn’t going to work?

  58. Pablo says:

    No. Like throwing a snitfit over his speech as though we feared it.

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  59. Pablo says:

    Preventing, those you find disgusting, from speaking, disallows others from seeing, first hand, the object of scorn, warts and all.

    Nonsense. You seem to have Bush all figured out. Have you ever been in the same room with him?

  60. Semanticleo says:

    ““fear” as an easy way out of an argument they are losing”

    Holy Moly, irony notwithstanding.

    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/906386.html

  61. Pablo says:

    happyfeet,

    The number of Americans speaking at Iranian Universities reflects a nation living in abject, pissing-itself terror then I guess.

    Mahmoud and Co. actually do lock people up and/or disappear people whose messages they’re afraid of. You might be on to something there ‘feet.

  62. happyfeet says:

    Also, the Columbia Dean contextualized Ahmadinejad’s visit by pointing to their welcome mat for Hitler. We find that shocking, but in Iran, that comment plays as high praise indeed. A propaganda coup, really. That’s not mere listening, that’s not debating, it’s starting the visit on the premise that this Iranian dude is a Top-Tier Jew Snuffer with major Cred.

    That does not accord with this idea that Iran is innocuous. It says they have rather high hopes for this plucky little nation.

  63. Pablo says:

    Comment by Semanticleo on 9/23 @ 11:00 am

    A point, a point! My kingdom for a coherent point!

  64. B Moe says:

    Cleo apparently believes irony and relevance are synonyms.

  65. SarahW says:

    they have rather high hopes for this plucky little nation

    And there it is. Exactly.

  66. Semanticleo says:

    Preventing, those you find disgusting, from speaking, disallows others from seeing, first hand, the object of scorn, warts and all.

    Nonsense. You seem to have Bush all figured out. Have you ever been in the same room with him?

    Pablo, (snigger, chuckle) thanks for making my point crystal clear.
    Maybe you should curtail his public appearances…………..

    http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=S1KGwQ1O88Y

  67. happyfeet says:

    That’s so weird. I’ve noticed I seem to be trapped in some sort of Italian YouTube when I go there. Is that normal?

  68. Techie says:

    Somehow, I’m not concerned w/ “oppressing the speak” of the lunatic of Iran. Cleo seems to believe that to be “true to freedom” we have to give monsters their soapbox.

  69. Pablo says:

    Pablo, (snigger, chuckle) thanks for making my point crystal clear.

    If your point was that you’re an idiot, which I assume is indeed the case, you’re welcome. RACIST!

    Maybe you should curtail his public appearances……

    Yes, I’m sure that’s the point you were trying to make, and I’m happy to have clarified it for you. Take your meds and have a nap. I’ll keep an eye on things around here for you.

  70. Semanticleo says:

    “If your point was that you’re an idiot, which I assume is indeed the case, you’re welcome. RACIST!”

    Didn’t mean to piss you off. Go in peace.

  71. ThomasD says:

    Supression of ‘unacceptable’ speech goes on all the time in academia yet this is the first time S. Clueless feels the need to weigh in on the problem.

    Just who do you think you are fooling with this act?

  72. Semanticleo says:

    “yet this is the first time S. Clueless feels the need to weigh in on the problem.”

    I’ve never seen your name. How do you know how often I ‘weigh in’?

  73. guinsPen says:

    Number of comments made equals reading volume.

    Check.

  74. JHoward says:

    On face, I agree with Semanticleo.

    But I agree with Jeff, more: Arrest the SOB at the gate. No extradition, a rapid trial, and some form of, shall we say, severe sentencing. I’d give it ninety days, tops.

    The point is that the man should be accountable for his words and actions, and that in light of the world stage and American best interest as the enforcers of UN resolution, its own best interest, and Congressional approval, not to mention the approval of nearly the entire country at such time as the action initiated.

    Because we have what it takes to act like free men and women and to keep doing so regardless.

    Which is also to say, act diametrically opposed to Semanticleo’s apparent viewpoint, which is clearly to trot out the fear/free-speech canard in the face of overwhelming cowardice, a staggering lack of principle, and the most warped, dysfunctional, flatly evil mindset extant in the civilized world today, which is that invented and expressed by the progressive Left.

    This has not a thing to do with free speech and outing vermin thereby on its own merits, Semanticleo, and you likely know it. What it has to do with is giving audience, as Jeff noted and we should be reminded, to a criminal of the highest order.

    Jeffersonian did indeed win the thread with the very first comment. Fuck the Left and its rubbish about exposing evil by parsing and controlling speech or by entertaining the Hitlers of the planet on US soil. Given the quaint repercussions over the last hundred years of that little malignancy of thought, they are evil more times than not — history is more than a little clear on that.

    How anyone can subscribe to ideologies that cost literally millions and millions of lives in the name of incessantly failed and fantastic social orders is unconscionable. Which is why the Left laps it up and forces it on the rest of us.

    Kindly don’t bullshit me about the motives swirling around the Left concerning one particularly clever middle eastern sociopath, Semanticleo. I know a bit more about perspective than that by now.

  75. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    You have to remember that in Cleo’s world Comintern was just a “bogeyman” (despite having murdered well over 100 million people). Naturally, he’s not “afraid” of Dinnerjacket.

    Macho supremo, that one!

    Why don’t you really show us up, Leo? Fly into Teheran and make a speech about gay rights? It doesn’t even have to be at a university — the airport will do.

    P.S. one of the the best known strategies for the iterated prisoner’s dilemma in game theory is “tit for two tats” (every dog gets one bite). Dinnerjacket’s regime has already had its bite (hell, it’s had dozens of them). I think we’d be justified in taking Dinnerjacket prisoner as soon as he sets foot on our soil, frankly. The same thing with the Geneva Conventions — if the enemy adheres to them, we do to (regardless of whether they’re an official signatory). If they start hacking off the heads of prisoners, all bets are off.

  76. Rob Crawford says:

    So, cleo, if it’s “fear” that makes us oppose giving a murderous dictator the podium, what is it that makes academics and students oppose speeches by Larry Summers, Michelle Malkin, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Daniel Pipes, and Jim Gilchrist?

    Are they acting out of fear? Fear of what, exactly?

  77. Pablo says:

    Didn’t mean to piss you off.

    No emotion involved, really. I just have to call you out when you’re loving up the dictator and hating on the sniggers.

    Rob,

    Are they acting out of fear? Fear of what, exactly?

    It’s the same fear every totalitarian has: fear of losing control of Teh Narrative™.

  78. Semanticleo says:

    JHoward;

    You miss my point entirely. I am not hinging my argument on ‘Free Speech’. I simply use the truism ‘When others think you a fool, remain silent. Speaking may forever remove all doubt'(paraprhased)

    (see Bush on YouTube)

    Let Ahmed speak. He will be seen for what he is. It is counter-productive to express moral relativism as some sort of virtue. We have more* (*weasel word) tolerance than you, so you are worse and therefore, bad while we are good. We have nothing to fear from words.

  79. Semanticleo says:

    “sniggers”

    THAT was the source of your unemotionally, unhinged, “RACIST”?

    Snigger is a synonym for ‘snicker’ (laughing up your sleeve etc.)

    Fer cryin’ out loud……………..

  80. Slartibartfast says:

    When others think you a fool, remain silent.

    Yet, you’re still here, being noisy.

  81. Pablo says:

    Sharp as a bowling ball, this one.

  82. dicentra says:

    Let Ahmed speak. He will be seen for what he is.

    No, cleo, he won’t. He is a malignant narcissist: charming, smooth, controlled, and manipulative. He will whisper all kinds of sweet nothings into the ears of his audiences. They will come away saying, “Hey, he’s not the enemy. Bush is.”

    Or in other words, their minds will not be changed at all. Ahmadinijad is evil, not stupid. He. Will. Lie. And dissemble, and come off as a real prince among princes. He will score another propaganda coup among his useful idiots and for the folks watching in the Middle East.

    If we snub him, we won’t be showing fear, we’ll be showing contempt. We’ll be saying, “this guy’s ideas are NOT welcome in civil society.” But like the useful idiots in the press who score interviews with dictators, then giggle about what they have on their iPod, Columbia will not in any way expose this man for who he is.

  83. dicentra says:

    We have more* (*weasel word) tolerance than you, so you are worse and therefore, bad while we are good.

    Um, Tolerance is prized highly only on the Left. It won’t impress the Muslim street one iota, who prize Honor. Which is what Columbia is giving to Ahmadinejad.

  84. Merovign says:

    Cleo is such a damned retard. I mean, it’s like watching a 10-year-old trying to argue that they shouldn’t have to take a shower.

    1) Ahmadinejad has plenty of coverage. Preventing the genocidal fuckhead from coming and getting a tongue-job from a bunch of Che-worshipping rug-chewing morons is not going to prevent anyone from knowing what the loud-mouthed shit-for-brains asshole is saying.

    Thus, your “suppression of ideas” argument is about the most complete bullshit possible. Either you are dumber than a small box of pebbles, or you are being disingenuous in making that argument.

    It isn’t about tolerating speech, it’s about rewarding a criminal, a thug, a liar and an asshole.

    2) Columbia’s position is NOT “let all views be heard.” Their position is “Don’t let Larry Summers (who let slip that boys and girls are different *GASP*) or Ward Connerly (who advocated racial equality in academia *GASP*) speak, but let a hostage-taking, murder-ordering, terror-funding, genocidal fuckhead be welcome as a dignitary!”

    That position lets you know what Columbia is willing to tolerate and what it isn’t. It IS willing to tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, terrorism, and genocide. It is NOT willing to tolerate racial equality or the concept that males and females are not interchangeable.

    In other words, they’re out of their fucking minds.

    And you are either oblivious to how much of a fool you look, or you just can’t get over your solipsistic delusion that everyone else is a malleable idiot that will eventually, through repetition of your inanities, come to accept them as true.

    Which is more pathetic I leave as an exercise for the reader.

  85. SteveG says:

    Cleo,

    You Tube sippets of Bush are lame.
    Record your self on a web cam saying the nonsense you write here and we’ll put together some youtube snips of you looking and sounding so dumb people will vote to sterilize your kids.

    The left has a fixation with promoting idiots like Ahmedinejad and pillorying Bush.
    Bush is called an idiot at evey turn. Bush can’t even answer a rhetorical question about “Mandelas” without the left falling into a frenzy. Obviously the genius left would have answered like it was a game show question and said “What is South Africa?” or perhaps asked for clarification… “Winnie or Nelson?.. they often travel apart ummm I’ll have the CIA ask around and see who is where and get back to you. OK?”

    You guys have lost your minds.
    Tolerance of religion extends only to Islamic lunatic sects who spew hate, intolerance and death.
    Free speech applies to the academic sheep who spout the party line, or to kooks who spew party line hate. (Israel sucks, USA sucks, Bush sucks) *Applause*

    Have Michael Metrinko (if he is still alive, last I heard he was in Afghanistan) flown in to ask questions. Let him ask the questions in Farsi. That’d be rich.
    Then let a couple of the Marines held hostage ask a question or two…

    Cleo should read Mark Bowden’s Guests of the Ayatollah or just read any history of the event. The left sucked up to them then at great physical and mental costs to Americans held hostage.
    The “clergy” that went to visit from the US will hopefully repent or burn in hell.
    The left is simply repeating its old tired traitorous song.

  86. dicentra says:

    Cleo, you really think that Ahmadinejad is going to reveal his true self to this clear-thinking individual?

    Why I Have A Little Crush on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
    by sallykohn
    Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 05:50:02 AM PDT

    I know I’m a Jewish lesbian and he’d probably have me killed. But still, the guy speaks some blunt truths about the Bush Administration that make me swoon…

    Check out the graphic: he’s a cuddly as Kermit the Frog.

  87. Rob Crawford says:

    Let Ahmed speak. He will be seen for what he is.

    Really? The left in this country (and others!) just spent a couple days going berserk over the claim that Bush said Saddam Hussein killed Nelson Mandela. They were incapable of comprehending a simple metaphor.

    My confidence in their intellectual abilities is, shall we say, not high.

  88. Merovign says:

    Re: “sallykohn” at KOS,

    Holy Shit.

    Just Holy Shit.

  89. Ric Locke says:

    What’s always amusing about people like ‘cleo (and “cicero”, yesterday) playing the “fear” card — “oh, you silly bedwetters, grow up” — is that on other subjects their attitude is quite different.

    Driving? Gotta be a Volvo. They’re just safer if a crash should happen, you know. Gotta take precautions.

    Global warming? Well, you know, maybe it isn’t exactly proven, but it could be true, and if it is it might be a disaster, so we really, really gotta dismantle Western Civilization right away, just in case…

    Nuclear power? OHMYFUCKINGCHRISTWHATANIRRESPONSIBLEFUCKINGSUGGESTION! ANATHEMA! ANATHEMA! THERE’S WASTE, AND IT’S DANGEROUS! CHILDREN MIGHT DIG THAT STUFF UP! NONONONONONONOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO…

    Bearded nutcases blowing shit up? Nah. Nevah happen, not in a million years, and anybody who worries about it’s a neocon bedwetter.

    Makes for a bit of, howyousay, cognitive dissonance.

    Regards,
    Ric

  90. ThomasD says:

    I’ve never seen your name. How do you know how often I ‘weigh in’?

    Search functions are a wonderful thing, much more reliable than memory.

    Why don’t you dig back through some of the threads where we’ve discussed the supression of ‘righty’ speech on campus and provide some links to where you did weigh in in defense of those whose speech was supressed.

    Terms like Summers, minutemen, or FIRE might give you a useful starting point.

    But lets face it, we both know that you’ve never taken a stand against the man when he was keeping down a reichwinger or their ilk.

    And, to refine the overall point further; this is not about Dinnerjacket’s ‘right’ to speak at Columbia it’s about Columbia’s audacity to extend him a fucking invite to their stage.

  91. Pablo says:

    Merovign,

    1) Ahmadinejad has plenty of coverage. Preventing the genocidal fuckhead from coming and getting a tongue-job from a bunch of Che-worshipping rug-chewing morons is not going to prevent anyone from knowing what the loud-mouthed shit-for-brains asshole is saying.

    Thus, your “suppression of ideas” argument is about the most complete bullshit possible. Either you are dumber than a small box of pebbles, or you are being disingenuous in making that argument.

    certainly, ‘cleo will be hosting Ahmadingytard in her living room and inviting all the neighbors, because otherwise:

    Preventing, those you find disgusting, from speaking, disallows others from seeing, first hand, the object of scorn, warts and all.

    So, are you scheduling him too, or are you all about the disallowing?

    I’m about the disallowing, and while I’d invite him over, listening to him dissemble wouldn’t be my purpose.

  92. Pablo says:

    Ric, you still got that backhoe handy?

  93. […] Related?  […]

  94. JD says:

    Ric – They are immune from cognitive dissonance.

  95. Ric Locke says:

    Sorry, Pablo, I had to give it back, and I can’t afford one of my own just now. It’s an ambition of mine…

    But I wouldn’t worry about it. Suffer semanticleo, not necessarily in silence, but with a glad heart. She’s a near-infallible indicator: if ‘cleo is poo-poohing it and trying to change the subject it’s important, and the more seemingly nuanced the subject change the greater the weight. Only John Cole comes anywhere close to being as dependable, and ‘cleo has the advantage of being both succinct and willing to weigh in almost everywhere. cicero tries, but just ain’t got the chops.

    What I’m waiting for is one of the Kos/DU/MO crowd to notice that Ahmadinejad absolutely vindicates Dan Rather, CBS, and the whole “Bush AWOL” crowd. After all, he has, in his own person, committed an act of War against the United States of America — namely, invading an embassy and taking its staff hostage. Since that happened in the ’70s, and everything (by definition) is Bush’s fault, it follows that Bush had to have been AWOL at the time, because otherwise he couldn’t have been in Iran to inflame poor Mahmoud into such tawdry behavior. QED. (Save the time stamp on this post; you read it here first.)

    Regards,
    Ric

  96. Rusty says:

    No. Ethel. It’s just that all points of view need not be given equal weight. For instance Ahmajustanutjob’s opinions can be dismissed out of hand as being the ravings of a sociopsychotic lunatic. Unless you’re down with that.

  97. JHoward says:

    You miss my point entirely.

    Perhaps you should make it more vividly. More convincingly. Meanwhile, you miss mine: A proper perspective. You lack it.

    In hopes of making your point stick, such as it may be, I do hope you’re taking requests:

    1. Answer #76.
    2. Consider #82 while you do so.
    3. Then delve into why he’s not arrested.

    Take on these three points Semanticleo, because I’m afraid they stand between you and the proof of your assertion, which is where you’re standing right now. They also stand between you and a proper perspective, one befitting what I presume would be a proud American.

    As in a positive citizen of this country, and I do not mean patriotism; I mean support for what supports you.

    Just do not tell me letting the guy violate New York is anything but precisely what it appears to be and will assuredly turn out to be. Save that part.

  98. ccoffer says:

    An invitation given to a genocidal maniac says more about the inviter than the maniac. The podium at Columbia has all the dignity of a fucking park bench. Next week they will invite another shit-throwing monkey.
    And the beat goes on……

  99. cynn says:

    Why is that swarthy little freak coming to this country anyway?

  100. Ric Locke says:

    The “swarthy little freak” is coming to this country because he was invited, cynn.

    His motives for accepting the invitation can be imputed, but they’re irrelevant. What you should be thinking about is who’s invited — and who’s forbidden to address the student body on the grounds of “free speech”.

    Regards,
    Ric

  101. JD says:

    … snips of you looking and sounding so dumb people will vote to sterilize your kids…

    I am fairly certain that we could put that to a vote without the youtube clips.

  102. cynn says:

    Mr. Locke: I’m astounded — you mean to tell me he’s coming here only to address Columbia, and not in some official capacity? I admit I haven’t been closely following this. But what an affront.

    No argument there. But my experience with the “academy” left me with a bad taste overall. I found that most of the academics with influence were pompous-ass know it alls, regardless of their political affiliation. And I agree that certain elements have way too much sway over the “speech community.” Ugh; couldn’t bail fast enough.

  103. Rob Crawford says:

    Ahmanutjob is coming to the US to speak at the UN. Part of the treaty establishing the UN requires the US to allow any head of state free access to the UN. That’s how Castro has gotten to visit the US in the past.

    During his visit, the fascists are feting him in appreciation for all he’s done to murder Iraqis and Americans.

  104. Ric Locke says:

    Actually, cynn, he’s (officially) here to talk to the weirdos down by the river. The Columbia University speech is a matter of seize the moment, so to speak. He originally asked for a chance to gloat over Ground Zero, but some tiny fragment of sanity prevailed, I’m not at all sure how.

    Regards,
    Ric

  105. happyfeet says:

    Also, isn’t it something of a charm offensive to blunt new sanctions that will be considered next month?

  106. happyfeet says:

    You know what else? Mr. Drudge deserves some props for this weekend. I think he gets taken for granted a bit.

  107. JD says:

    I understand that he is allowed to travel freely to and from the UN. Outside of those specific moments, I would have him arrested quicker than you could blink. Aiding and abetting? How many times to Iranian arms and explosives have to be used against our troops until they do something about it?

  108. J. Peden says:

    Whatever about Simanticleo, she does a very poor imitiation of alphie.

  109. jmflynny says:

    I don’t know what time 60 Minutes plays out your way, but it’s far more interesting and direct an interview than you might expect from CBS.

    Of course, it also makes one want to travel to NY for the sole purpose of choking the piss out of the S.O.B.

    He essentially admits his desire to dance on the graves of 9/11 with his statement that a visit would be to pay respect and comment on the ‘root causes’ of the event itself.

  110. J. Peden says:

    Right, a very poor imitation, too.

  111. Ric Locke says:

    There’s this about it, JD: Ahmadinejad is no stranger to violations of diplomatic immunity, having perpetrated a major violation himself.

    I’m torn, actually. I can’t tell from a brief Google whether or not Columbia University is on or close to a direct route from Kennedy Airport to the UN building, and it wouldn’t hurt my feelings to tell his security detail that if he varied from such a direct route his security could not be guaranteed. Do you suppose we could find some “students” (nudge, wink) on short notice?

    Not worth the trouble, actually.

    Regards,
    Ric

  112. cynn says:

    I saw that 60 Minutes episode. A-mad comes off like a spook. Very aw-shucks, what me, a dictator kind of crap. Total prick.

  113. JD says:

    Ric – I heard Mossad can mobilize pretty quick.

  114. JD says:

    It would be ironic, Ric, that the diplomatic laws that he so gloriously and proudly trampled all over when he took the American hostages were the same laws that allowed him to come and go from our country freely, despite his cowardly JOooooooooo-hating ways.

  115. JD says:

    I just want to make sure I understand this. Phelps (DEMOCRAT) cannot speak there because he is anti teh ghey. The US military cannot recruit there because of Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell”. Yet, Republicans are the ones accused of being anti teh ghey. And, just to make it even more clear, Ahmednutjob is not necessarily anti teh ghey, he just advocates burying them up to their necks and then collapsing a stone wall on them, and he can talk there, because of free speech? I am confused.

  116. cynn says:

    Here’s this, and I’m just tossing it out. If Ahmedinejihad is the de facto leader of the Revolution Army, or whatever it’s called, which has been designated a terrorist force by Whoever is in Charge of Terrorist Designations, shouldn’t he be snatched apace?

  117. Ric Locke says:

    cynn, you have to watch out: CBS is spinning you again.

    Ahmadinejad isn’t a dictator. He’s an operant function for the Council of Mullahs, like a computer’s speakers — the works are down in the box, out of sight. Having 60 Minutes talk about him as a dictator is an attempt to get your eye off the ball.

    The other thing he is is a deliberate insult to us. It’s fairly obvious every time he opens his mouth that he’s a lightweight, about as qualified to be President of a good-sized country as alphie is. Appointing one of the “students” who invaded our embassy, kidnapped the staff, and held them at gunpoint while Jimmah dithered as President, head of state, entitled to sit at the same table with Blair, Bush, et al., is a fairly pointed statement.

    Regards,
    Ric

  118. cynn says:

    Ric, I grant that A-jad is a muppet. So, what do you propose? He is purposly increasing his exposure, and ramping up the encounter. This ridiculous appearance is way bad PR on his part.

  119. Mikey NTH says:

    JD: if they are immune from cognitive dissonance then they have no cognition to dissonance. Which means – ZOMBIES!!!!

  120. JD says:

    Mikey – I never considered that.

  121. JD says:

    cynn

    Here’s this, and I’m just tossing it out. If Ahmedinejihad is the de facto leader of the Revolution Army, or whatever it’s called, which has been designated a terrorist force by Whoever is in Charge of Terrorist Designations, shouldn’t he be snatched apace?

    I think for the first time ever, you and I are on the same page here.

  122. Ric Locke says:

    What can we do?

    Well, cynn, we can do exactly what he wants, and what your fellow travelers at MoveOn and Kos and DU want: we can eat shit and pretend to like it.

    Despite some of the more overfoozyastic folks upthread, the Bush Administration will have given strict orders to the Secret Service and the other security people: there will be no breaches of diplomatic immunity. Ahmadinejad will give his speech, and it will be a variant of the last Osama tape — that is, a Democratic Party stump speech suitable for, say, Kucinich. The crowd will go approvingly wild, all the aging hippies will congratulate one another and us all for conducting a civilized dialogue, the Press will play approving little snippets with commentary suggesting that George Bush is a fool for not seizing this opportunity to further his diplomatic initiatives (but what can you do, the fellow’s an idiot), and the man will get back on his Airbus and go home. In Soros’s offices and the headquarters of MoveOn there will be high-fives: “Yessss!”

    And you know how they always accuse of George Bush of “smirking”? Take a look at Ahmadinejad’s face as he turns, just before boarding the aircraft, and raises his hand in salute at the cameras. That is a “smirk”. Because we lost this round, and he knows it, and so does everybody else in the world. Bad PR on his part? Just the reverse. The man’s a hero. He stuck his head in the lion’s mouth, made a rude noise, and got away unscathed, and it’ll be celebrated that way in every Press outlet on the planet for the next several months, with little snippets popping up for the rest of our lives.

    Demonstrations? Don’t waste your time. The thousand or so MoveOn shills will, by the Magic of Television™, become an Unstoppable Host, and the only anti-Amadinejad “protest” that will be newsworthy will be the nearly-toothless Mr. and Mrs. Hiram Goodbodie of West Mudflat, Oklahoma, who will mumble something about “Godless Commies” and suffer ridicule — tempered, of course, by the realization that as ignorant Red Staters they simply can’t do better.

    I expected you to be happy, cynn. Ahmadinejad stuck it to the Bush Administration! Huzzah! The war Bush and PW have been slavering for (as I recall, you have endorsed putting it that way) becomes much less likely, because it’s obvious that those are reasonable people we can talk to, and Pelosi and Reid will simply have to restrain the Bu$hitlerburton Rethuglicans until we can get a Democrat in office who will conduct diplomacy properly, including getting out of Iraq so’s not to irritate those folks unnecessarily. Nukes? Bah. Dear Mamoud is a kindred soul; if he’d feel more comfortable having nukes (so as to resist the Imperialist Americans, of course) let him have ’em. It’ll all be fine. Maybe he’ll give one to the Heroic Iraqi Resistance. It’ll make one Hell of an IED, and then the jackbooted thugs of the American Army (whom we support, of course) will have to come home. Kind of a lot of innocent bystanders get vaporized, but that’s what happens to quislings.

    And, along about 2010 or 2011 the point of the whole exercise will get realized: the American Dollar will have to be devalued, and George Soros will make a trillion dollars of profit off speculating on currency exchange. That’s how he got his present fortune, you know, by doing that to the Brits.

    Regards,
    Ric

  123. B Moe says:

    “He essentially admits his desire to dance on the graves of 9/11 with his statement that a visit would be to pay respect and comment on the ‘root causes’ of the event itself.”

    Isn’t there a big ass chainlink privacy cage, I mean fence, around the site now? Call me overfoozyastic, but how about we lock Amad in there with some of the firemen and cops that were down there and let them discuss root causes together?

  124. happyfeet says:

    I hope he says something about Jena. It would just tickle me is all.

  125. cynn says:

    Mr. Locke: You are really going off. Did I piss you off that much? I did have a snotty response all prepped, but wisely deleted it.

  126. Ric Locke says:

    cynn, dear, you mistake me entirely. I’m cool and mellow tonight. I have Jim Beam Black and a little branch water in my glass and a baby kitten in my lap, my horse came and apologized for kicking me and patiently learned a new trick, I got the lawn mowed, and tomorrow my wife and I sign the note for our new business. I’ll admit you’ve irritated me vastly in the past, as I surely have you, but tonight it ain’t you. It’s just the situation in general.

    But I have seen the light. Next November I’m going to vote for the Democrat — it doesn’t matter which one. After all, I voted for the first Carter Administration. I might as well go whole hog and vote for the Second.

    Regards,
    Ric

  127. cynn says:

    I’m glad you’ve resolved your dilemma, Ric L. I have not settled mine. I guess that’s the lefty agony, always roiling, never an open port. As always, I’m on edge.

  128. JD says:

    Ric – I am sure it pained you to type those words even more than it pained me to read them.

  129. Self-Hating Fool: Why This Modern-Day Pink Lady Likes the Mahdi…

    Well, for one thing, he’s so cute that he makes her, a Lesbian, consider the straight life:
    Okay, I admit it. Part of it is that he just looks cuddly. Possibly cuddly enough to turn me straight.
    But wait, there’s more!
    There are certainly…

  130. fool says:

    “Neither the Soviet Union nor Nazi Germany had tenure.”

    Well, of course in the case of the Soviet Union, they were always dealing with shortages brought on (of course) by the forces of reactionary counter-revolution. So they had to ration most things including tenure.

    By the end of the first Five Year Plan, most professors under the Soviet system were all the way up to “nineure,” although some of the more junior faculty members with just barely enough time served had to make do with “eighture.”

  131. Ric Locke says:

    BTW if one of you should get a chance to speak directly to Ahmadinejad, be sure to tell him: the Mahdi is alive and well, and will shortly be promoted to Captain in the U.S. Marine Corps. If he expresses amazement, remind him that the Jews didn’t get what they expected, either.

    Regards,
    Ric

  132. cynn says:

    Ric Locke: WTF?

  133. Ric Locke says:

    Prophecy is easy after the third JBB & water, cynn. You should try it.

    Regards,
    Ric

  134. SteveG says:

    cynn

    that one was easy

  135. Merovign says:

    Ric – profound and eloquent, if depressing (re: your longer recent post). Hopefully not entirely correct, ’cause if it is we’ll have an awfully big hill to climb.

    I’m glad you have a kitten and your JBB, though.

    Re: Your plan for speaking to MonkeyJihad, I’m runnin’ that up my flagpole and saluting it. Man, I hope someone does that and catches it on camera!

    Cynn: The port’s there, but no one can really help you find it. Patience.

  136. Merovign says:

    Oh, and if Soros does pull that one, the reaction from a bunch of angry rednecks with no retirement plans MIGHT be SLIGHTLY different than a bunch of French peasants or British subjects.

    No specific predictions, just a lot of people know his game now.

  137. Slartibartfast says:

    Can someone tell me what in the hell branch water is? I mean, I’ve heard what it’s supposed to be, but I cant’ seem to picture Mr. Locke strolling out the back door and dipping his glass in a local brook between drinks.

  138. Ric Locke says:

    Slart, it just means “not tap water with all those chemicals.” From a bottle, in my case. The name is just for the euphony.

    Regards,
    Ric

  139. Slartibartfast says:

    I thought as much, but it’s hard to tell without asking.

  140. Great Mencken's Ghost says:

    “As it is, this has to ring hollow even in liberal ears.”

    Nathan — NOTHING rings hollow in liberal ears if they can just shout it loud enough, often enough. They take their ultimate deafness as agreeement.

    We have to face the fact that the humanities in American universities have become a death cult.

  141. Techie says:

    Branch water is what older Southerners call spring water.

  142. BJTexs says:

    I’m thinking that Ahmaddinnahjacket will have plenty of time to speak and ample security to deter interruption. I’m also thinking that it will be significantly more security and surety than that hateful racist from The Minuteman had when he basically got pushed from the stage without so much as a “sorry” from Columbia’s President.

    I need to stop thinking now as my head is throbbing.

  143. Matt, Esq. says:

    I’m still confused how “free speech” can even be cited for a reason/excuse in this situation – Freedom of Speech is guaranteed by the Constitution for all US citizens. Mamohoud is obviously not a citizen. The only way in which Mamhoud could be guaranteed some kind of “free speech” rights in our country is if there is some kind of “Global” right to free speech, which there isn’t (ask the Iranian people). Why in the heck should we apply “civiized” rules to a president of a country that doesn’t apply them itself ?

    Also, its not like he doesn’t have other outlets to get across his message- there’s hardly a day that goes by without a clip of him spewing some garbage about death and Jews. So all this “visit” does is give him a better, more visible situation to spew more garbage, that we’ve already heard before. Columbia can ask all the “tough: questions they want but its not like Mamhoud will answer any of them honestly or even has to answer them. There’s no accountability whatsoever.

  144. Morally Blind…

    The Dean of Columbia would invite Hitler to speak.Sadly, no follow-up question asking how he might react should der Fuhrer…

  145. Matt, Esq. says:

    *but what can you do, the fellow’s an idiot*

    but what can you do, the fellow’s the dumbest EVIL GENIUS ever”.

    Fixed it for you.

  146. happyfeet says:

    I’m still confused how “free speech” can even be cited for a reason/excuse in this situation…

    This is so discussion of his visit can be framed as a question of “whether he should be allowed to speak,” as opposed to whether Columbia was justified in extending the invitation. It’s kind of subtle, but NPR was very clarifying about the distinction this morning. They got me learned up. It’s ENTIRELY an issue about attempts to suppress freedom of speech. The corollary is that this incident highlights the willingness of Iran to commit to a dialog, however intransigent and stubborn and misguided the Bush Administration might be. I know that now.

Comments are closed.