“The only charm of the elites is that they're supposed know how to act like gentlemen. When they lose that -- then, really, haven't they overstayed their welcome? “
Michael J. Smith

The rest of the world isn’t watching any more. That is the real tragedy of past seven years.

Oleeb, you really depressed me. I had forgotten that Ike was once President of Columbia.

So, since 1951, we have gone from Truman in the WH to Bush 43. And from Eisenhower to Bollinger at Columbia. And, in the same period, from Mossadegh to Ahmedinajad.

Darwin!!!

mjrosenberg,

Darwin!!!

DEVO

I wonder if I can get some reaction to the following query. It is clear Ahmadinejad has said a number of inflammatory comments and these are trotted out every time any contacts arehad (by US reporters...the Pelley interview seems to scrape new low levels, and the Bollinger tirade). I have the distinct impression that the same general shunning and demonization (maybe with a little less invective) went on when Khatami held office. So is the demonization dependent on who holds office?

It was fine for Bollinger to challenge Ahmadinejad (personally, I think it would have been craven for him not to have challenged him, especially on human rights issues). Where he really embarrassed, himself, though, was when he drank the administration Kool Aid about Iranian intervention in Iraq, and stooped to personal insult. Rather than behaving as a professor and president of a world class academic institution, Bollinger seemed to be trying out for a gig subbing for Sean Hannity.

Disgraceful!

Bollinger essentially read the American government's bill of particulars against Iran.

Most, if not all, of which is demonstrably false. Bill of lies is more like it. So much for the academic search for truth--propaganda rules.

Bollinger was threatened by various local officials as well as a presidential candidate (Hunter) with a cut-off of funds prior to his tirade. Money may have affected his thinking, and soon might affect his position.

*First they passed laws restricting some citizenship rights, then they went further and suspended habeus corpus and privacy rights, next they politicized and marginalized the universities, and then they got serious . . .*

In many respects, Ahmadinejad is to the actual leadership of Iran as Spiro Agnew was to Richard Nixon: a loud mouth to be sent out to make speeches, while the people with real power, such as Khamenei, get some work done. If Khamenei speaks, I listen. If Ahmadinejad speaks, it's like Pat Robertson, or perhaps a little less skilled Dominionist speaker.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

And more than that Bollinger made this country look fearful, paranoid, ill-mannered and weak.

Bollinger made America look like a bunch of idiots. Universities are supposed to be about discussion and dialog and Bolliger clearly only had ill will and anger to dish out.

I called Columbia University this morning and told them that I thought that I was listening to "Fox News" when I heard their President trash talk like that.

Of course the ill will wasn't because of Ahmadinejad since Jimmy Carter was put through the same wringer over at Brandeis. Thus, Bollinger was being blatantly racist and political...

On the Holocaust, Israel, gays, etc.

as far as the Holocaust goes, I think I agree 100% with Ahmadinejad's point that when the Berlin wall fell (wiped off the map) East and West Germany became one again. So, in that light, I'd love to wipe Israel off the map and create Israelistine, a place where Israelies and Palistinians can live together in peace.

as far as gays go, America has two cultures: one that hates them and another that sees their humanity. when the right recognizes gay marraige, I'll believe that the US is less biggoted w/ regards to gays. I attend an episcopal church and have watched a segment of that church seperate from the anglican communion on the issue of homosexuality alone and they seem inclined to at least give gays second class status if not lower.

To boldly go...

Sad to say, I remember the band. But I forgot the meaning of the name. Thanks.

Chesire111 sums it up well, except that DEVO released their debut album in 1978.  And yes, their performances were fairly theatrical, and they took advantage of the early age of music videos.  But credit them for coming up with a unique sound and making pretty good music for a gimicky punk band -- including what may be the best cover of the Stones' "Satisfaction" you'll ever want to hear.

I didn't see Bollinger's remarks, but from what I've heard of them, he acted like an ass. I DID see the last half-hour of Jib-Jab's presentation, and I have to say it was totally at odds with the contemptuous comments of Rosenberg and Marshall. He sounded both reasonable and smart as he decried US support of Saddam in the 1980s, described any political leader who pursues nuclear weapons as "retarded," repeatedly reminded the audience that a willingness to negotiate has been the basis of Iranian foreign policy since their revolution, and invited groups of students and faculty to visit any of the 400 universities in Iran.

I missed the the first part of his talk in which he apparently backtracked on his holocaust denials, and his silly comment about there being no gays in Iran. While I would not defend him, I thought he came off very well, in contrast to Bollinger, who made an ass of himself.

There are political realities in Iran and Jib-jab is at the mercy of some pretty stern bosses. Sometimes when people demonize this guy for the Iranian position on gay or women's rights, or Israel, I'm reminded of the fact that J. William Fulbright, that icon of American liberal intellectualism, opposed and voted against every single piece of civil rights legislation that came before the Senate in his legislative career, just so he could keep his seat and chairmanship of the Foreign Relations committee.

Jib-jab is no Fulbright, but he ain't no Hitler either.

I was embarrassed to see a university president treat a guest in such a way. I am sure you are right. No Israeli would treat an invited guest in this way. We are not impressed with President A but in the Middle East I bet that his stock went up. He was insulted. He stayed. He spoke. He quoted from the Koran, He invited Columbia's students to visit Iran and go to which ever university they wanted. He put in a plug for the Palestinians. We such amateurs at propaganda. We such gave this man a boost. We look like idiots. Karen Hughes: go to Bollinger and talk to him.

I figured you weren't that young... ;^)

DEVO!

Are we not men?? :-)

One thing, Bollinger did manage to unite the Iranian people behind their president which is a counter-objective to that of the US government.

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iranians on Tuesday called the combative introduction of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by the head of Columbia University "shameful" and said the harsh words only added to their image of the United States as a bully.

In a region where the tradition of hospitality outweighs personal opinions about people, many here thought Columbia University President Lee Bollinger's aggressive tone - including telling Ahmadinejad that he exhibited the signs of a "petty and cruel dictator" - was over the top.

The chancellors of seven Iranian universities issued a letter on Tuesday to Bollinger saying his statements were "deeply shameful" and invited him to Iran.

"In other words, Bollinger looked like a kept academic sucking up to the commissars."

What does MJ mean, "looked like"?

They seem a head for our times.

Devo - Whip It

devo corporate anthem

They were also follower of the Church of
the SubGenius originally based in Dallas.

Actual church, but i'm not sure of this
part; they moved to Washington, DC or has
that changed yet to AC?

-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking

Let's wipe out the Indian Reservations and have Ameristine.

Neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis wish to adopt the other's culture.

If there was any doubt that a handful of influential people control the American MSM, that doubt has been pushed aside the last few days.

Both the CBS "60 Minutes" interview with Ahmadinejad, that was both haughty and arrogant in its tone and the not so veiled accusations against Ahmadinejad that were plastered across the New York papers had the air of asking someone if they had stopped beating their wife.

The American MSM has been foaming at the mouth the last couple of days over the visit, barely able to contain itself as it falls all over itself, with each form of media trying to one-up the other in painting Ahmadinejad as some sort of evil incarnate.

Strangely enough, they never mention the part of Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia where he brought up the plight of the constantly under siege Palestinians, who Israel has mandated that they will be the ones to pay for all past transgressions, real or perceived, against Israel.

And for Columbia's president to cite the Council on Foreign Relations(CFR) research as a basis to attack Ahmadinejad is beyond absurd.
In the past, the CFR has devoted pages to right-wing religious nut cases like Pat Robertson and the still at large and wanted by Chile war criminal, Henry Kissinger.

Whatever one thinks of Ahmadinejad, they have to give the Iranian president high marks for keeping his cool and not going ballistic by not taking the bait, which was offered numerous times the last few days in the form of leading and loaded questions and hostile interviewers.

Do you truly think that the so-called "leader" of the free world, president GW Bush, would have been able to maintain his composure under such conditions?

So, I take it you're not interested in signing my petition to get Ahmadinejad to have a Table For One spot on the front page of TPM Cafe?

OK, fine. If you'll excuse me, I have to go back to hating America now.

when I called Columbia University, I noted that the saddest part of the whole thing was that academia dropped it's standards for discourse and discussion a few notches.

To boldly go...

What's really odd is that Lee Bollinger is a noted and respected First Amendment scholar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Bollinger

"What do you call a government official with some but not complete power elected from a slate vetted by a self-perpetuating group of clerics?"

ummm, a puppet.

"Anybody who invites a low life thug like David Duke"

Actually, I've heard David Duke and he can be pretty interesting.

Free speech does not operate by self-editing censorship - it operates by more speech.

Bollinger's speech really was free since it was cheap! ;-)

To boldly go...

some estimates suggest that there were over 100 million "native americans" in "the americas" before the genocide happened. this halocaust has been santized from US history for obvious reasons.

and, as far as I can tell, Israel is running an "open air" concentration camp and has a policy of genocide towards the palestinians.

I don't think it's about culture, it's about ego and greed.

"Let's wipe out the Indian Reservations and have Ameristine."

you might want to look up the NAU (north america union). with 100 million mexicans, 33 million canadians and 300 million "americans," it makes sense to me to "wipe lines off the map" and form a larger democracy. the proposed currency is called the Amero.

To boldly go...

You can't hopscotch around the international game board without landing in some places you would rather not find yourself. Iran is one of those. And it is that way because the U.S. pretty much trashed the nation of Iran in the not too distant past. We've given little reason for Iranians to care much what happens to us. The U.S. meddled very seriously in the internal politics of Iran. The persons who happen to be in power in Iran today watched that unfold with great dismay and haven't forgotten. We can be critical all we want of the present Iranian leadership but unless you ask yourself why it is this way you've missed the point entirely. You can't just screw with people forever without realizing that eventually there will be some payback.

I think we needed for Columbia U to do this. If we are truly a democracy then we need to be the one place in the world where anyone can speak his or her mind no matter if we agree or not. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may hate our guts and maybe we didn't want to listen to what he had to say but he has honored us and honored democracy by coming here and speaking. George Bush is a chicken shit, but that notwithstanding he could not do that in Iran.

I think it is friggin awesome that someone this nation dislikes a whole lot is able to come here and make a public address. That tells me Bush and Cheney haven't destroyed this nation no matter how hard they've tried.

Hope springs eternal.

Sorry, MJR, but I agree with Scott Paul's post in The Washington Note (http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002369.php)
- Bollinger Gets an A. Money quote:
"it's important to see these comments in context. Bollinger told Iranian officials explicitly that he would make a critical introduction and "pose sharp challenges and questions." None of this was a surprise. And, for that matter, the rules of diplomatic protocol don't apply here and Bollinger is under no obligation to be courteous in his remarks. Ahmadinejad was invited to spur dialogue, not to be honored or toasted -- and he knew it.

Moreover, the purpose of his comments is neither to advance the war agenda nor to placate the hawks, as some have suggested. Rather, they represent the flip side of Bollinger's point on free speech: anyone who wants a public forum must be willing to endure public criticism, however unpleasant or even rude it may be. Point well taken in my book."

Are questioning the holocaust or Al Quaeda's responsiblity for the WTC attack more outrageous than denial of global warming...

Ahmadinejad simply thinks that the historical retelling of the holocaust isn't correct. And-- after watching GW fudge reports on global warming and 9/11, I'd have to agree with Ahmadinejad that the likelyhood of a fudged history of the holocaust seems plausible.

IBM, for example, was accused of selling and creating technologies that let germany carry out the holocaust [SOURCE] so what sanctions should be placed on IBM or why weren't sanctions placed on IBM?

wether these anecdotal stories are myths, or not, who knows? but the story about why the holocaust happened is a lot more complex than it's made out to be-- my opinion.

To boldly go...

This entire event really provided insight into so many areas that it may take a few more days to truly digest.

On one hand, we (Americans) showed a complete lack of humility and professionalism towards a guest (for better or worse). It is one thing to disagree with the position of a guest, but if our discontent with them is of such emotional substance, why have them as a guest in the first place? It leads one to believe we either are willing to invite the sheep in, that we might feast upon them in our own den with no fear of recourse, or we are simply poor hosts.

Almost in a spin off of the first thought, we also showed that while we most certainly have a person in this country that holds the same title as our Iranian guest, and an equally low opinion of his overall performance and motivations, we do not openly challenge him in such a manner. Far from it, should the president of the United States show up on any college campus, the questioners shall be screened far in advance, and the host would certainly not jeopardize his career or the status of his institution by such an aggressive challenge.

The last thing that really sparked interest in this whole spectacle was the Ahmadinejad speech itself. Granted there are things lost in the translation, and things like inflection and candor are hard to perceive when dealing with a foreign language, the entire presentation seemed disjointed and without focal point. Perhaps he was taken back so much by the opening remarks that he could not recover, but he really seemed to be making rambling rhetorical remarks that were not pre-planned without driving toward a key point, much like our own president has done from time to time, oft becoming the subject of clips for comedians.

All in all, a bad showing for both America, and Iran, and that is kind of disheartening considering the state of the world, and the amount of preparation both representatives undoubtedly put in to the event.

The holocaust is one of those untouchable things in history! Finkelstein has learned this lesson with his book "The holocaust Industry"

This Nation article by an Indian student at Columbia highlights the pretentious hypocrisy of the institution and Bollinger. He recounts an earlier visit by Musharraf and the curious omission of the fact that he came to power through a military coup in the background brochures distributed to the audience. Nor was "anyone with a mike" allowed to raise questions about his dictatorship.

It's a shame that in their ardor to appease, Columbia's champions of free speech didn't allow those with the most potential impact to confront Ahmadinejad; Iranian students.

"In this face-off between Bollinger's prefacing remarks and Ahmadinejad's speech, the university president "made Ahmadinejad look the winner," said Mansourian, "and that's not what I wanted." The Iranian, like the rest of us, wanted a real debate, one in which Bollinger would practice what he had preached the previous year in a campus-wide e-mail to students.

"In a society committed to free speech," it had said, "there will inevitably be times when speakers use words that anger, provoke, and even cause pain. Then, more than ever, we are called on to maintain our courage to confront bad words with better words."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071008/vora

The tuned-in Shmuel Rosner has a different take, he sees the whole mess as ultimately bad for Israel as Israel's diplomatic focus has been to portray Iran/Ahmadinejad as a threat to the world at large rather than just themselves:

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia University in New York on Monday resulted in one clear loser: Israel.

In his speech, Ahmadinejad took aim at Israel. If he managed to convince one person of his views on Israel and Zionism, then he has already gained. If he managed to persuade 50, then he has gained even more.

For months, Israel worked fervently to prevent what happened on the podium Monday. For the duration of his speech, Ahmadinejad produced a televised illusion: It is not Iran versus the world, but Iran versus Israel."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/906890.html

I remember 'Communism' too. And let me tell you that the parallels with what's happening in the US nowadays are disturbing. All the official secrecy, fear of external enemy, all-powerful executive and a rubber-stamp legislature. It's not nearly as bad... but to that I have to add 'yet'.

Nationalism is indeed a terrible drug. Most of Western Europe is mostly free of it because the overdoses that culminated in WWII were a pretty powerful learning experience. The US in general is a pretty nationalist country, but so far it hasn't created major problems for Americans. Let's hope it stays that way.

Well, would Bollinger introduce Bush or Cheney the way he introduced Ahmadinejad? If not (and I'm 99% certain he wouldn't), he's a stinking hypocrite.

Bollinger's rudeness just made him look weak. Rudeness is the refuge of people who ran out of arguments.

Dunno about that. All countries seem to go through a reactionary phase in which the older generations reject Modernity and go about fighting all their medieval feuds with each other and other peoples out one last time. And they elect a group of people with medieval social and religious views, who let the country go to pot economically so that the fighting of enemies internal and external not be hindered by prosperity and cooperation and liberality and doing good and creative things with average peoples' time and money.

The real question is why the Iranian and American ruling elites had to pick this particular fight with each other. It seems a set of Cold War accidents, because there's nothing inherent or specific that forces them to be opponents. Maybe it's the American elites' crooked and unworthy alliance with the al-Saud family, at bottom, but that seems to root more in shared contempt of commoners than objective interests, perhaps. At bottom the American tack on the Middle East is nonsensical.

The major point that President Ahmadinejad has been making, and he's making it as the victor, is that Americans occupying Iraq are being killed by Iraqis because the Iraqi people have learned to hate them and don't want them there. So any other questions, Ahmadinejad posits, are secondary to this major truth, including questions about the origin of weapons used by Iraqi occupation resisters or speeches that he has made about the central problem in the Middle East, Palestine.

As the victor in the US invasion/occupation of Iraq, Ahmadinejad makes his point from a position of strength. He knows it and the US knows it, which makes him a bitter pill for the US.

The American elite, to include the media and Columbia University, Ahmadinejad is learning, can't handle this criticism of the American Empire. Can't even discuss it. It's like negotiating surrender. So they concentrate on meaningless trivialities like whether Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denies the holocaust or not. It is these trivialities, history will record, that are ostensibly driving the US toward war with Iran. Of course we know that the real reasons for a new war are that Iran won't accept US hegemony in the Middle East (and hasn't for some time) and that Iran has a lot of our oil and gas.

I'm so angry and embarrassed as an American citizen by Bollinger's insanely rude and INACCURATE remarks preceding Ahmadinejad's speech. I have nothing but contempt for Columbia's president.

As for Ahmadinejab, I listened to his speech on C-span last night and found myself agreeing with 90% of what he said. I found the 'no gays in Iran' remark to be coy, accompanied by a smile and a little joke. A. was (according to my take) saying that gays in Iran remain in the closet. Well, the same goes for gays in the more 'theocratic' parts of the US. As for his 'facts' about US interference in Iran (installing the Shah and supporting Iraq during the Iran/Iraq War, including the use of chemical weapons against Iranians) he was quite correct.

But most of all, I am just astounded and totally amazed by the anti-Iran sentiment expressed by many in the US. Ahmadinejad isn't a dictator; in reality he has very little power. I checked on his domestic policies yesterday and found that many good ones, e.g., building housing for the poor and relaxing hijab (sp?) for women were nixed by the mullahs. More women attend Iranian universities than men. And the nuclear issue? Quite simply, I believe Ahmadinejad. And beyond that, if we are to have an effective Nonproliferation Treaty then we have to abide by its rules and not show favor or disfavor to countries that are allies or 'perceived' enemies. Neither India nor Israel have signed the Nonproliferation Treaty and both have nuclear weapons, uninspected and in the case of Israel, mostly unacknowledged (although everyone knows they exist). Iran has signed NPT, abides by IAEA inspections (for the most part) and has a right to make fuel for civilian nuclear power purposes according to the terms of the treaty. But the US is intent on demonizing the country. I'm just losing it entirely. I'm so sick of this propaganda crap. Oil, oil, oil... Israel, Israel, Israel...

And, as to the Holocaust question, I can't defend Ahmadinejad's interest in 'more research' but do find his pro-Palestininan views very much on mark. Iran has a small Jewish population who are treated with respect. There are synagogues in Tehran. Even though their numbers are not great enough to qualify for a Parliament seat, a seat is given to the Iranian Jewish citizenry so that they have a voice in the government. In case any of you are interested in reading more, I found a lot of this info in the Christian Science Monitor, I think April, of 2007.

Well, enough....

PS: MJ, I think it is always interesting, and potentially enlightening, to hear from any heads of state. It allows one to make personal decisions about the veracity of what that person says and to get a 'feel' for what his/her arguments are in relation to world conflicts or world peace. There are always at least two sides to every story.

Well said Crabapple.

Why is this making me hope it is as hard to spell "Bush" in Farsi as "Ahmadinejad" in English?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I don't get it. Ahmadinejad didn't say anything that he hasn't said many times before. And Rosner is engaging in a bit of wishful thinking with his talk of "illusions" and "mirages". It is true that Israel has been working along with the US to convince the world that Iran is the world's problem, not just the problem of Israel and the US. But frankly, with only a few exceptions, the vast majority of the world doesn't seem to be buying it. And that was true long before Ahmadinejad hit the podium at Columbia.

For Rosner, the majority of Americans are incapable of understanding the "regional complexities" of the Middle East, and that is why "for months, Israel worked fervently to prevent what happened on the podium Monday." I guess "what happened" is that the Iranian President was given an opportunity to speak to an audience of imbecile Americans who need to be protected from dangerous ideas.

I think you're taking Rosner's analysis out of context, unless I misread Rosner. I don't think Rosner's point is that Americans are incapable of understanding "regional complexities". But, come on, it is hardly profound to acknowledge that someone can say the same thing in two different settings, and in one setting, depending on the environment, what one says can be far more compelling than when the same thing is said in a different setting.

I think Rosner was speaking from a public relations perspective, and that is that what transpired outside and inside the room where Ahmadinejad spoke was a plus for him in terms of getting his message out. And I think that's a fair assessment, again assuming I'm reading Rosner correctly of course.

"There are no gays in Iran" we have killed them all.

just use cut and paste...

To boldly go...

He was intelligent, reasonable, and direct.

That's why I think Bollinger was told to take on Ab-jab's charisma. Bollinger, unfortunately, didn't seem to have much charisa in the videos I saw.

To boldly go...

Personally, I do a double-take everytime I hear the words "Department of Homeland Security"....