Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Columbia University
Alex at Alexanders Archive has commented on one of my posts. I believe he classifies my sentiment as “well deserved, but misplaced”. He’s probably right. I do however, still disagree with Columbia University inviting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak. Fortunately for them, they didn’t ask me. Of all the people who could speak, why invite him? Hearing all viewpoints is good, but his viewpoint is well known. Did he have anything new to add to the discussion, or did he just give another rant against the US, homosexuality, and any religion other than his own?
I do however agree with Alex that “Their desire to hear all sides of a very important contemporary argument should not be censored.” I’m curious though, if Columbia wants to hear from all sides… why do they continue the ban on ROTC?
Go read all of Alex’s post. I particularly like this part.
Iran’s president says there are no gays in Iran, and as wildly insane as that sounds (about as much as when Larry Craig says he “has never been gay”), Iran executed two gay teenagers by means of hanging not long ago. Some conservatives have said Mahmoud is right on this fact: there are no gays in Iran because he’s killed them all. Which is of course ridiculous, as much so as some of the denials we’ve heard. – Alexanders Archive
You asked: “Did he have anything new to add to the discussion, or did he just give another rant against the US, homosexuality, and any religion other than his own?”
I think the “there are no gays in Iran” is new, isn’t it? I take it you’re a conservative, and it’s quite obvious I’m a liberal, so by stereotypes I should be more upset than you at homophobia. I know it’s been rampant in Iran. But, this dyed-in-the-wool denial is brand new, or I’ve been following the wrong news outlets.
I think that’s significant. Did you read the New York Times article about his visit to New York, before it happened? Ahmedinijad came off as an intelligent, clever person who can think on his feet, even out smarted the interviewer from the NYT. A lot of people who lean to the left take a soft stance on Iran, saying things like “Their nukes will balance Israel’s unchecked power.” I hate to call these people who I agree with on many other issues “useful idiots,” but on the topic of Iran, I think the escalation of crazed denials takes the wind out of these people’s sails.
I don’t think colleges and universities should be recruiting grounds for the Armed Services, but I also think students don’t need “protection” from knowing about them. I think anyone who’s living in the dorms, managing their own schedule, and participating in adult life can decide for themselves whether they’d like to be a part of the military or not. They don’t need the dean to shield them from this. And, frankly, students should be given some type of recognition for their service in ROTC.
Thanks for sparking an intelligent debate! I like it when I can exchange ideas with people who sit across the isle; I’ve been too closed minded, and lately seeking out differing opinions. It’s helped me grow as a person.
Comment by John — October 2, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
I may be mistaken, but I thought Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had made denials of the existence of homosexuality in Iran before, though I can’t remember where. I’ll see if I can’t find that.
Thanks for the comments, I appreciate them. As you’ve noticed, I am conservative for the most part, but I like to confuse people by jumping to the other side of the aisle on some issues.
Comment by HDW — October 2, 2007 @ 7:36 pm
Actually, Iranians are saying that he was mistranslated. That he said that there are no gays like those we have in the US, not that there were none at all. Which on the face of it is true, as they don’t have the in-your-face subculture that we have.
My reaction to both sides of the whole discussion has been “way to take your eyes off the ball, knuckleheads.” Who cares how they define it? They effing KILL people for it. That’s what important.
Besides, he’s just the Ayatollah’s yappy little chihuahua — all noise and distraction. He very handily turned the conversation away from Israel’s ability to effortlessly penetrate their anti-aircraft defenses (which are the same as Syria’s).
Comment by jan — October 2, 2007 @ 10:58 pm
Desert,
Like you, I am outraged that Columbia entertained Armageddonijad.
I found your blog through Michelle Malkin’s website, since I am a fan of hers as well.
Comment by eric — October 3, 2007 @ 2:32 am