The folks over at the P-I have developed a strange and muddled fascination with Holocaust denial.
Contumelious columnist Joel Connelly now habitually uses the epithet "Holocaust denier" to disparage anybody who raises scientific questions which challenge his personal beliefs about climate change (here, here and here).
And today, the P-I editorial board praises and defends a bona fide Holocaust denier.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 25, 2007 09:09 AM | Email This"Liberalism is a mental disorder!"
Posted by: MJC on September 25, 2007 09:26 AM"Who are these people" as Butch and Sundance said to each other before going out in a blaze of glory.
Posted by: swatter on September 25, 2007 09:38 AMThis article discussed Congress denounced Aquavelvetjad in an overwhelming bi-partisan measure by passing more restrictions on Iran.
Seems the PI is out of lockstep with their own Democratic Party.
Posted by: swatter on September 25, 2007 09:40 AM"Washington (AP) Congress signaled its disapproval of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with a vote Tuesday (397-16) to tighten sanctions against his government and a call to designate his army a terrorist group."
Posted by: MJC on September 25, 2007 09:43 AMdefense of Iran's little nuke-seeking tyrant
We talking about Iran or Pakistan...oh wait Pakistan already has nukes. I forgot, Pakistan is helping us in the war on terrorism (not).
Bush's defense of one tyrant and not another is amusing to say the least. I'm sure even MJC's can see the blatant hypocrisy here.
No surprise to see McDermott one of just 16 voting with the little tyrant.
Posted by: MJC on September 25, 2007 09:55 AMCato, have you so far denounced the moveon ad attacking our country's top soldier? This is a sanity check, by the way.
Posted by: swatter on September 25, 2007 10:06 AMAt the new mainstream voice of the Democratic Party, Jewish lesbian "sallykohn" explains:
Daily Kos: Why I Have A Little Crush on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
No, it's not a joke. And no, this is not an unusual sentiment at Daily Kos.
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...
Okay, I admit it. Part of it is that he just looks cuddly. Possibly cuddly enough to turn me straight. I think he kind of looks like Kermit the Frog. Sort of. With smaller eyes. But that's not all...
I want to be very clear. There are certainly many things about Ahmadinejad that I abhor -- locking up dissidents, executing of gay folks, denying the fact of the Holocaust, potentially adding another dangerous nuclear power to the world and, in general, stifling democracy...
Read more at:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27176
Iran is decidedly NOT a free place, no matter what drivel he spews about that.
Back in the 80's, I met a guy about my age while on job here in town. I asked him where he was from and he said "Iran." I asked him what brought him to this country his exact words were "Because I don't want to be killed!"
Startled, I asked for more details. He explained that he was of a religion (B'hai) that was not acceptable in Iran and his life was clearly in danger if he had stayed.
Don't believe Mahmoud. His country is NOT free.
And then it also implicitly agreed with him in when he made "clear arguments for Iran's right to nuclear energy, said he didn't deny the Jewish Holocaust and blasted the rhetoric against Iran while expressing hope for diplomatic talks between Iran and the U.S." Why do I say that? Because they talked about things he said they clearly disliked, and then said "however" as a setup to the list above.
Maybe "praise" is a bit far, but certainly they expressed agreement, or favor, for some of the things they perceived him to be saying.
Posted by: pudge on September 25, 2007 10:33 AMLast I checked Free Speech is still good in this country. If MoveOn wants to waste their money I say let them. This whole "controversy" over the Ad is a load of hot air. I think you would be happy that MoveOn is giving the GOP something to talk about other than how poorly the war is going.
As for Ahmadinejad, he got the proper grilling he deserved from President of Columbia University. I notice that nobody draws a fuss if Musharraf comes to this country and appears on the Daily Show.
Let's go through the checklist to be on Axis of Evil,
P = Pakistan, I = Iran, North Korea = NK
Nukes: P = Yes, I = Working on it (guess who sold them the technology?, maybe P?), NK = Yes
Dictatorship: P = Yes, I = Yes, NK = Yes
Harbors Terrorists: P = Yes, I = Yes, NK = No
Violates Human Rights: P = Yes, I = Yes, NK = Yes
Wants to destroy Israel: P = Yes, I = Yes, NK = Unknown
Ally on the 'War on Terror': P = Yes, I = No, NK = No
Then they praised AQVJ for standing up to Bollinger and asked , "do you think Bush would have done it?" as if Bush and AQVJ have the tiniest iota of equivalency.
They agreed that Iran should have nuke energy ("clear arguments why Iran..."), and agreed with his rhetoric that the jury is still out on whether there was a holocaust or not.
If all this isn't praise, I don't know what is.
Posted by: swatter on September 25, 2007 10:42 AM"I figured out why they call us Deniers.
We deny Al Gore his speaking fees and book tours.
We deny Richard Branson the right to stink up the planet with airplanes and claim to be Green.
We deny the right of Hollywood Superstars to tell middle class Americans to save a gallon of gas while guzzling more consumer goods than Croesus.
We deny the right of IPCC Eurocrats to scarf free brie and espresso at endless Geneva conferences on our nickel (Global Climate Tax)."
Posted by: John Bailo on September 25, 2007 10:50 AMVery, very true.
Posted by: jnash on September 25, 2007 11:01 AMI can tell you this much---my youngest, who sports the academic credentials needed to apply to a school like Columbia, will be discouraged from even considering a place like that.
Posted by: Michele on September 25, 2007 11:03 AMWhat's so disgraceful about it? Welcome to America, people do and say stuff you don't like.
It's not like Columbia gave Ahmadinejad soft ball questions, or set up "protest zones" miles outside the actual event. I think that Ahmadinejad saw more free speech in practice at Columbia U. than Pres. Bush does when he attends similar types of events.
Again, what's the difference between Ahmadinejad and Musharraf?
Swatter, saying Ahmadinejad made clear arguments for something is very different from agreeing with him. You often make clear arguments for things and yet I disagree with you; sometimes there are clear arguments on both sides of an issue. (And the irony here is that even President Bush agrees that Iran should have nuclear power under certain conditions!) So while Ahmadinejad said much garbage (which the P-I clearly takes him to task for), how can you criticize the P-I for factually reporting what he said? And how can Eric read this as "praise"? (They did defend his right to speak, which is different from defending him. Got a problem with that?)
Posted by: Bruce on September 25, 2007 11:47 AMI believe Bush supports helping Iran (and North Korea) develop nuclear power under (appropriately) strict conditions that would make us safer than if we remained enemies. Got a better idea? Invade them?
Posted by: Bruce on September 25, 2007 12:07 PMHow far has he gotten with that goal? The Ayatollah Khomeini was shouting that all through the 80's. 20+ years later we're still here, Israel is still here. It's all talk. Didn't stop him from buying weapons from us during the Iran/Iraq war.
Difference is Musharraf is not completely, absolutely bonkers.
Can you definitively prove that?
having a mad, racist dictator spew propaganda as entertainment and "enlightenment" at your next group function, then go for it.
He certainly is all of the above. Do you think he's actually going to convert anyone though his rampant tirades of nonsense? People used let Jerry Falwell speak, he fits a much of the same criteria (minus the dictator part). You don't seem to have any problems with that.
I for one take that as a starting point when I judge anything he says or does and go from there.
Hopefully somewhere there's a JDAM or a "private room" at Gitmo with his name on them.
Posted by: threeoddnumbers on September 25, 2007 01:04 PMSo we should throw out the 1st Amendment because we might not help some poor oppressed people in other countries. You can't expect anyone to take that argument seriously can you?
However, there is a world of difference when one of them is a dictator and has the means to implement his madness
Exactly, Pakistan already has the Nukes and I doubt they'd have any problem selling the technology to other Islamic nation states. What a difference being a backer on the war on terror makes. No one would give a damn if Musharraf spoke at Columbia U.
The difference between the Iranian tyrant and anyone else is that he is killing our kids every day.
How many of their kids did we kill when we sold arms to both sides of the Iran-Iraq war? Ever wonder why Iran's under-30 crowd makes up 70 percent of the population?
Posted by: Cato on September 25, 2007 01:34 PMIn my opinion, the leftoids or secular progressives do not want true diversity of opinion on campus and because they tend to be moral relativists, there is no evil, so they can't see it. When one plays poker with the devil, it is hard to have a winning hand.
Posted by: WVH on September 25, 2007 01:42 PMAnd since when does Aquavelvajad have first amendment rights? He can talk all he wants in Iran or Venezuela or North Korea or France.
Posted by: swatter on September 25, 2007 01:58 PMWhat has the 1st amendment to do with inviting the Iranian dictator to speak at a prestigious university? If I wanted to speak there and they didn't invite me, would that be a "violation of the 1st amendment"? That argument is just silly.
You must realize your arguments are silly and you are just posting to argue. I don't believe you are really serious. The president of Columbia could have been talking about you when he said "You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated." Since I don't believe the latter, it must be the former.
Posted by: Bill H on September 25, 2007 02:04 PMHaha, you have got to be kidding me. Claiming Teletubbies are gay role models is a family value? Claiming that liberal groups/lifestyles caused 9/11 a timeless family value? Don't forget his support of segregation? Is that a 'timeless family value'?
Your leftist tendency to equate a terrible guy with a guy who's done nothing like the terrible guy has done is very strange.
You obviously missed the point of the comparision.
Would there have been marches and sit-ins had a conservative come to speak? Would they have invited Secretary of State, Rice for example??
Sure, I have no doubt they would invite her and protests would ensue. There were (minor) protests when Obama and Cantwell spoke at BCC. I don't see why her presence should be treated any differently.
Depends on where you are speaking. If you are outside the event exercising your 1st Amendments rights then No. If your inside a private event you are likely to get ejected and possibly arrested.
You must realize your arguments are silly
I'm not the one who claimed we should forbid him from speaking because his rhetoric may oppress people who wish to overthrow him at home. That's an exceptionally silly argument.
We should show him that the ability to listen and question those who present views different than ours are the cornerstones of Democracy. He obviously was expecting a softball interview, I'm glad the University President and the audience gave him a grilling on his misguided beliefs. This was an extraordinary opportunity to display the great freedoms we have in this country that obviously don't exist in Iran.
Nice strawman, do you do a tin man and a lion too? I haven't seen anyone say that "we should forbid him from speaking". Columbia certainly had the RIGHT to do invite him, I and other people here are just saying that it was stupid for them to do so--that is if your goal is to be helpful to our troops in Iraq and the political dissidents in Iran. If your goal is to give a terrorist a forum for his propaganda then it was a great idea.
The left certainly has an odd idea of what the 1st amendment says. It starts off as "Congress shall make no law...", not "Columbia University shall withhold no invitation to speak...".
" I'm glad the University President and the audience gave him a grilling on his misguided beliefs."
Well, this is something we can agree on--given the mistake that they made by inviting him in the first place, they did make the most out of it by challenging him. However, that will not make any difference from a propaganda standpoint in the Middle East, since those challenges will not be heard. It will be spun as "Ahmadinejad goes into the den of the great Satan and speaks Allah's truth to the infidels" or some such crap.
Posted by: Bill H on September 25, 2007 02:34 PMIs John Ashcroft conservative and faithful enough for you? He's spoken at Columbia, as have many other conservatives. Major universities have thousands of speakers from all over the world with a wide range of views every year. That's a major part of the reason they're centers of learning.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were protests when some of these conservatives spoke. That's freedom, and yes, the students and faculty at America's leading universities lean liberal. As Steven Colbert said, reality has a well-known liberal bias.
In my opinion, the leftoids or secular progressives do not want true diversity of opinion on campus and because they tend to be moral relativists
That's a ridiculous, baseless generalization.
Posted by: Bruce on September 25, 2007 02:35 PMYet another in the long line of stupid 'were at war, it's not ok' arguments. I would hope the troops have more important things to worry about than whether some dictator spoke at Columbia U.
If your goal is to give a terrorist a forum for his propaganda then it was a great idea.
I'm sure all those 60 Minutes interviews he does are much more harmful. This way ordinary people got to see just how shallow his rhetoric was.
It will be spun as "Ahmadinejad goes into the den of the great Satan and speaks Allah's truth to the infidels" or some such crap.
Why do you care how they spin it? No one here is buying it. A lot of Iranian citizens there have illegal satellites dishes and can get the truth if they so want it. Just because they live under a nutjob President doesn't mean that individuals can't think for themselves (they just can't say it out loud).
Do you just not read what people say or are you being obtuse on purpose? The propaganda was for the people in the Middle East, especially in Iran. The Iranian regime has also been supplying the bad guys in Iraq weapons to use against our troops. Make the connection.
"Why do you care how they spin it? No one here is buying it."
For the umpteenth time, it is not anyone here that was the audience for the propaganda, it is the people in the Middle East, especially Iran, who will not hear the entire exchange. As I said, it will be trumpeted as "standing up to the great satan".
Well yeah, IF they have satellite dishes or uncensored internet connectivity AND they speak English, then they might get the full story. But most will not--they will get the regime's version.
Posted by: Bill H on September 25, 2007 06:00 PMMahmoud has been airing for quite some time a series of television specials to prepare the Iranian people for the return of the Mahdi, and laying out what is going to happen. Firstly, a number of things need to happen, including the slaughter of tens of millions of infidels, including the entire Jewish State of Israel. He doesn't need atomic energy to generate electricity, but for nuclear attacks through the western civilized world. This will trigger the return of the Mahdi. Mahmoud sees himself as the instrument of this messianic return. Some people even think he believes he himself is the Mahdi.
However, the Mahdi will not come to Iran. Rather, he will go to Kufa, Iraq, which will be the seat of power from which the great Caliphate will be launched throughout the world. All infidels must submit to Islam or be slaughtered.
If any one of our whiz journalists would ask him, I am sure Mahmoud would be sure to clarify this for all the world. His forays into Iraq have to do with Kufa, and with the coalition forces keeping him out. He announced two years ago that the return of the Mahdi would take place in two or three years. One year left.
In the meantime, stooges on Daily Kos think he's "cuddly", want him for President of the U.S., etc. It's about time we start listening to what he says at home, not here. He's laughing at us and happily planning our demise. And our universities invite him as an honored speaker. Just how much more stupid can we get?
The damage is now done. This will be used as propaganda to embolden terrorists and other anti-American forces in the Middle East, and it is simultaneously seized upon by many on the Nutty left here as just another example of a zany, but well intentioned guy who hates Bush.
When Columbia starts inviting KKK leaders to speak, then they can at least claim more consistency. But, this ranks up there as a first for an American university. And not a noble one.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 25, 2007 10:16 PM1. "Free Republic
Testimony of Robert David Johnson (re intellectual diversity on college campuses)
academic. brooklyn.cuny.edu ^ | 4-2005 | dfu
Testimony of
Robert David Johnson, Ph.D.
Professor of History, Brooklyn College and The Graduate Center of the City University of New York
Brooklyn, NY
Testimony Before the
Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions Committee
United States Senate
Hearing on Intellectual Diversity
October 29, 2003
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee:
My name is Robert David Johnson. I am a professor of history at Brooklyn College and The Graduate Center of the City University of New York, where I teach courses in U.S. political, diplomatic, and constitutional history.
As a historian of the Senate, I am particularly honored to appear before the committee. I have written books on the interwar Senate and on former Alaska senator Ernest Gruening, both published by Harvard University Press. I am now completing a study of Congress and the Cold War, which Cambridge University Press will publish.
I survived an attempt by Brooklyn College of the City University of New York to deny me tenure on the basis of my ideas and academic values, an attempt amounting to an attack on the principle of intellectual diversity on campus, and as such, perhaps, of interest to this body. Though conceding that my accomplishments as a scholar and a teacher were first-rate, the college based its case on a handful of senior colleagues' secret letters, which came to be labeled the "Shadow File." CUNY chancellor Matthew Goldstein ultimately overturned Brooklyn's decision.
The "Shadow File" letters, which attacked not only me but also several other untenured professors, condemned me for three violations of prevailing campus orthodoxy. First, I was deemed uncollegial for having objected, along with other, but tenured, professors that a college post-9/11 forum was unbalanced because none of its speakers supported either U.S. or Israeli foreign policy. The provost had termed the forum an educational event and allowed professors to dismiss their classes to attend it; I argued only that the college should not label a one-sided event educational.
Second, I drew criticism for the standards that I employed in a search for a new professor in European history, when I joined several colleagues in urging the department to base its choice on the candidates' demonstrated records as researchers and teachers. My critics instead advocated granting a disproportionate role to subjective comments on the candidates' personalities and to gender considerations, despite the college affirmative action officer's having cautioned that the department's existing gender diversity would make such an approach violative of federal law.
Third, the significance of my scholarship and teaching was downgraded because of the kind of history that I teach. Scholars perceived as politically conservative, or even those who taught fields perceived as conservative--such as political, diplomatic, or constitutional history--were to face a huge disadvantage in personnel decisions at Brooklyn College.
In some ways, my case represented an anomaly in the academic world. Those who want to fire someone because of his beliefs or academic specialty rarely put their opinions in writing, as did the "Shadow File" professors. Because of my credentials, I attracted support from dozens of national political and diplomatic historians, of varying ideological persuasions. I benefited from all but perfect legal representation. Finally, CUNY, rather than Brooklyn, possessed the final say on my tenure. I can only wonder what happens to job applicants or untenured faculty from my fields who are rejected for reasons similar to those offered by Brooklyn, but who lack the advantages that I possessed...."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1376583/posts
2. " How Many Ward Churchills?
A Study by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni
Ever since tenured ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill called victims of 9/11 "little Eichmanns," he has become the veritable poster boy for extremism in American academe. In How Many Ward Churchills?, ACTA places Churchill in context and finds--based on a broad survey of publicly available materials--that Ward Churchill is not only not alone--he is quite common. The study concludes that throughout Americam higher education, professors are using their classrooms to push political agendas in the name of teaching students to think critically. Calling on institutions to "take steps to guarantee a proper balance between students' academic freedom to learn and professors' academic freedom to teach, research, and publish," the study offers concrete steps colleges and universities can take to ensure a vibrant learning environment.
To read the report, click here.
To request a copy of the published report, please email ACTA at info@goacta.org.
Intellectual Diversity
Time for Action
In spite of a statement by 30 higher education organizations recognizing the importance of intellectual diversity, a recent survey by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni shows that not a single institution has taken concrete steps to further that goal. In a report made available today entitled, Intellectual Diversity:
Time for Action, ACTA outlines steps universities can take to encourage a mix of ideas on campus and to respond to the growing public concern about the lack of intellectual diversity.
To read the report, click here.
To request a copy of the published report, please email ACTA at info@goacta.org.
Right now, the Ward Churchills are winning.
So let me follow your logic here...more American troops MAY die because an American University invited the leader of Iran to speak where he was asked a variety of questions by average Americans and was greeted by a hostile audience and open air protests. Because of this Al Jazeera will run an hour long special on the Iranian dictator saying he's some sort of hero for going to the US, this in turn will inspire legions of poorly trained Sunni fighters who will go out and fight our troops?
This seems like quite a stretch to believe. Certainly propaganda alone is lame reason not invite him to speak and give him a hard time.
a legitimization of evil conferred upon Ahmadinejad by an offering for him to speak at Columbia.
Ummm yeah, you keep telling yourself that. Inviting him to speak in no way legitimizes what he's done. No one was buddy buddy with him. No one at Columbia agrees with him, in fact the audience was quite hostile to him especially by Iranian standards. The conservative propaganda is to de-humanize him so we can invade Iran and drag this country further down into a full scale regional war. By allowing him to speak people realized what a nut he really is, and may even be more supportive of the President's ambition to invade more Arab nations.
IF they have satellite dishes or uncensored internet connectivity AND they speak English
By Arab standards Iran is actually a rater progressive country with highly intelligent people who go abroad to study at British University's.
Persians vote, they are educated, they wear western clothing, and are quite young (avg. age is 25.8 yrs). The youth want change, give it time another evolution will happen. They're already oppressing the students at University's, it's just a matter of time before the students demand serious reform. Bombing Iran into oblivion really doesn't help the progressives cause to change Iran from within.
Have you ever seen what passes for television on Arabsat?
Ever tried picking up English channels in the ME without paying for or subscribing to them? I mean, I guess you could pirate them.... If you had the technical know-how. Please enlighten us as to the massive and widespread availability of pro-anything-except-Iranian-dogma that the average Iranian has.
I reckon that'll be a pretty short piece.
Posted by: Aaron on September 26, 2007 01:34 PMNo, I can't say I have.
lease enlighten us as to the massive and widespread availability of pro-anything-except-Iranian-dogma that the average Iranian has.
Maybe you should take your head out of the sand sometime. Seems that numerous opposition Persians were beaming programing to Iran mainly from the US. The Govt. figured it out and started taking away satellite dishes. People there want reform, they would vote for it if the Govt. would let them. Too bad Ahmadinejad has appointed himself dictator in chief after being democratically elected. Still that's better than Musharraf who kicked out the democratically elected President in a coup. It was Pakistan that helped form and fund the Taliban which continues to fight our troops in Afghanistan.
Despite fitting all the criteria of an Axis of Evil nation Musharraf continues to be a 'valuable ally' and can come to this country, meet with the President, and even appear on the Daily Show without conservatives saying an angry word. Talk about double standards.
No, Propaganda alone is a GREAT reason not to invite him. You show historical ignorance if you do not know the power of propaganda in a war--it is often more important than battles.