Bollinger was just plain wrong.

[cali]

Ripping into Ahmadinejad in that manner BEFORE he spoke was reprehensible. And unnecessary. It was undignified, and it was rude. I get why he did it, I think: He was under pressure for having invited him, and funding was threatned. But all that said, `it was embarassing.

What should he have done? Simply introduced him, perhaps with a line about the profound differences he has with him and let him speak.

After questioning by the audience, he could have had his turn and questioned Ahmadinejad himself.

I have no use for Ahmadinejads anti-gay, holocaust denying, religious fundamentalism, but he was invited to Columbia. He didn't impose himself on the University.

[eleny]

1. We haven't been called the Ugly Americans for nothing

We earned it.

[cali]

3. Bollinger did a good job impersonating that

today. And the sad thing is, he's a first amendment scholar.

[eleny]

9. Back to class for Bolinger

[sir_captain]

16. I don't get your point

no one was prevented from saying anything--what does this have to do with the first amendment. Both of them were grandstanding, but at least Bollinger wasn't denying the existence of homosexuality or the holocaust, no?

[hiaasenrocks]

27. There is nothing to get. No First Amendment issue on this at all.

I asked below and it has, predictably, gone unanswered.

Just bluster.

[cigsandcoffee]

23. This guy oversees the hanging of gays by their government...

...and you're concerned that we're ugly, and worried that people are calling him on it in public? Sorry, but give me a fucking break.

[Postman]

42. What is the rightwing whining about?

Ahmedenijad's hanging of gays is more in-line with their ideology than they want to admit.

[hiaasenrocks]

2. Are you suggesting that it's unfair to prejudge what someone

is going to say before they speak, even if you know the basics of their beliefs and if you put most of your objections in the form of answerable charges?

There was a similar argument in politics over the last two weeks or so. Conservatives were upset with MoveOn because they ran the ad before he delivered his testimony.

Where do we draw the line here?

[cali]

4. I'm not sure it's analogous

even though I'm one who thought the ad was a strategic mistake. Quite simply, Bollinger was the host, and he tore into Ahmadinejad in a crude manner. Not, I'm sure, his finest hour.

[hiaasenrocks]

6. The principle is the same.

Ahmadinejad had a chance to respond substantively to each question/charge. He chose not to. He missed an opportunity to engage in the free exchange of ideas.

[sir_captain]

13. The whole thing was a circus

there was literally a 0% possibility of any actual exchange of ideas, and consequently, Bollinger decided to have himself come off as a champion of decency. As for the whole host business, actual academic conferences, where there is theoretically actual exchange of knowledge, is hardly a bastion of politeness, so I don't really see the problem here.

[eleny]

11. Petraeus's testimony was slipped out in dribs and drabs before he appeared

Oh, and Bolinger, being a First amendment scholar, is held to a higher standard on First Amendment issues than Moveon.org would ever be judged.

You need a new analogy.

[hiaasenrocks]

12. How was the First Amendment violated or

diminished in any way today by Bollinger's action?

What specifically did he do that prevented Ahmadinejad from speaking?

[partylessinOhio]

5. He was crude and rude and kissing the chimp's a$$!

[hiaasenrocks]

8. Did he say something false?

I'm not going to argue whether it was rude or not, because a) I don't care of someone is rude to Ahmadinejad and b) that's a subjective determination anyway.

What I'd like to know is what, if anything, in Bollinger's speech was untrue? Or were there any questions asked without foundation?

[Justitia]

7. I agree. -eom

[sir_captain]

10. It's largely internal Columbia politics

Bollinger didn't invite him, but had the power to rescind the invitation as the president of the university. He allowed him to come only if Bollinger got to get his two cents in first--was it grandstanding? Of course.

Over the last year, Columbia has dealt with a ton of controversy regarding its middle eastern studies program, and a very controversial professor, accused by many of being rather virulently anti-semitic, was recently turned down by Bollinger for tenure (not for his politics, mind you, but because he isn't much of a scholar.) Allowing Ahmadinejad to show up was a big of a makepeace.

As for the method of Bollinger's talk, I see what you're saying, but we both know that Ahmadinejad wouldn't have given Bollinger any more of a straight answer about the holocaust, etc, than anyone else, and so Bollinger decided to get his points across first, and I can't say I entirely blame him.

[eleny]

14. A debate between the two might have been interesting

But as an introduction, Bolinger belittled himself and Columbia. I'd have preferred him to walk a higher ground. But heaven forbid we show some class and move towards some semblance of sanity in the Middle East.

[sir_captain]

18. Sure, a debate would have been fantastic

but there was a 0% chance of that actually happening. The guy has been called to the carpet for his ridiculous and racist comments time and time again, and he's never actually engaged anyone on it. Why would today have been any different?

I guess I just don't see why it is so rude to call a spade a spade in this case. Was there something in particular that Bollinger said that you objected to?

[eleny]

26. "Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator,"

There's a time and place for everything. This was not the time and place. You may disagree. And I would disagree with you. I don't appreciate Bolinger playing the ugly American today.

Bolinger had an obligation to be courteous to his guest by keeping the introduction short and without making it a disgraceful impression of G.W. Bush while he was at it.

[sir_captain]

28. I understand and respect your point

and in most cases, I would agree with you, though I don't think it's fair to compare Bollinger, who is a fine liberal, to Bush.

In this specific case, I disagree simply cause I pretty much agree with everything Bollinger said, rude or not.

[eleny]

31. I figured as much about why you're an apologist for Bolinger

I think it's more than fair to compare his introduction today to the petulant demeanor of W.

Petulant as in "Contemptuous in speech or behavior". http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/petulant?r=75

[sir_captain]

35. I'm not sure why you

have to make your "point" in such an accusatory tone. I said I respected your opinion and would normally agree with it.

George Bush doesn't have the license on contempt, and yes, I have a lot of contempt for the President of Iran and anyone else who denies things like the holocaust. I don't believe this makes me any more like Bush either, thank you very much.

In any case, I would suggest you're being somewhat hypocritical as you seem to be displaying a rather large amount of contempt for my opinion. If I misread you, I apologize.

[eleny]

39. You're reading a tone of voice into my reply that isn't there

[sir_captain]

40. Then I apologize

though I suggest that when you use words like apologist, regardless of their dictionary definition, they carry a certain negative connotation that you may not actually mean, no?

[eleny]

41. And you can quit lecturing now. Please take the last word.

Btw, yer've finally gotten on me nerves with yer finger waggin'. You kin walk the plank to me Ignore List, matey. Arrrr... here ya be goin'! http://www.mediacollege.com/downloads/sound-effects/water/splash-04.wav

[Schema Thing]

15. I agree. Besides, how do you make the case that an

elected president who exist on the weak side of a power sharing arrangement, is a "dictator"? And if one or two aspects of Iranian society are cruel, does that mean that Ahmadinejad himself is "cruel"?

The petty one is Bollinger.

[xchrom]

17. bollinger forewarned the president what was coming -- forewarned.

what the hell do you want?

as much as i find the u.s.'s attitude and treatment of iran to be hostile and unproductive -- and through history even murderous -- ahmadinajad is not -- NOT a good guy.

he deserved the ripping he got -- he was forewarned -- ahmandinajad took it -- and stood up to it -- the he is known to do.

[cali]

20. I explained what I wanted in my OP

And there's no reason Bollinger couldn't have waited until after Ahmadinejad spoke to challenge him. I hate to sound like Ms. Manners here, but that was the problem for me; lousy etiquette.

[Inuca]

25. It's much more than just etiquette

as I tried to explain in a post below. What in the west is perceived as etiquette, be nice to your guests, something that is noce to do, but not the end of the world if you don't, in other cultures is perceived as beyonf offensive. So yes, I agree with you, I just think that it's stronger and worse than you described it.

[cali]

29. I understand about other cultures but that is not

my point. He was in our culture- a when in Rome thing. He shouldn't have the expectations that our culture is like his.

[Inuca]

36. Maybe he should not have these expectations

but for the Columbia president to talk the way he did is... I just can't find the words to describe how inappropriate that was. Since I wrote mt previous post, I saw some more of what both of them said, more shocking statements from whatever his name is and Ahmadenijad's reaction when he started speaking. From what I saw, his first reaction was to say was to refer how guests are being treated where he comes from. By the way, I was not criticizing you viewpoint in any way, just trying to add my .02 to the discussion.

[Mike03]

19. I couldn't agree more

It was humiliating to even hear Bollinger's prefatory comments given the circumstances of Ahmadinejad's invitation, but more than that, how can the United States hold itself up on a pedastal of freedom yet be so hypocritical on a fundamental building block of our society such as freedom of expression. It was despicable to sandbag him like this, and it was dishonest and disinegenuous, no matter how vigorously we may oppose Ahmadinejad's views.

[dipsydoodle]

21. The question is

when The President of Columbia University, aka Wayne Kerr, made the statement did Ahmadinejad smile ?

[Inuca]

22. I only saw some news reports

so I do not know the details. But based on the little I know, what Bollinger did was, among other things, in incredible cultural faux pas. Ahmadinejad was "his guest", and that's how it's going to be percieved in the ME. To insult one's guest is viewed, as far as I know, as an unforgivable offense.I am curious how and how much this will play in that part of the world... we did not make any friends, that's for sure.

[malaise]

24. He was an atrocious host

His offensive diatribe was fucking insult to academics and universities everywhere on the planet.

[Babsbrain]

30. The worst part of Bollinger's rude accusations was

him saying that he spoke for all Americans.

First Amendment rights allow one to speak their opinion, not to assume he speaks for all.

Bollinger is a flaming right wing jerk and that is my opinion. I would never say that I speak for all.

[sendero]

32. I blame.....

.... the intense pressure put on him for allowing A to speak.

Even here at DU, people just don't get what "free speech" means.

[cali]

43. *snort*

want to explain your take on what 'free speech' is, and if you don't mind, explain how that statement reflects such an imperfect knowledge of the first amendment.

[sendero]

45. Screw the first amendment..

... I'm working on a simple theory. People who don't want to let other people be heard have their own agenda, and it is not necessarily above board.

So A is a liar. So is George Bush. They are all liars. Let them all be heard and let people decide for themselves.

[NC_Nurse]

33. I thought it was a bad move too.

Unfortunately, the idea of civil debate and courtesy seem to be all but gone from this country.

[CRK7376]

34. Agreed

I'm thrilled Columbia stayed the course and would not back down, invited the Iranian President. To blindside him during the introduction was wrong. Let him speak, then with home court advantage, blow him out of the park....We are the Ugly Americans in so many ways....

[LittleClarkie]

37. It wouldn't have been so weird if only they hadn't invited the guy

Come and visit us sometime so we can insult you. M'kay.

[sir_captain]

38. Internal politics

He was invited by one part of the university, and then the president of the university decided not to rescind the invitation, but only under the condition that there be the two speakers. It's a pretty common thing when controversial speakers come to private academic institutions, actually, though I can see how it would outwardly seem kind of odd.

[Timex]

44. Bollinger has ruined his own image n/t