Indoctrinate-U is a documentary on the sad state of modern American academia. It thoroughly documents how liberals have taken over our universities and basically eliminated any conservative voice. While liberals always claim to stick up for free speech, Indoctrinate-U documents a number of cases where conservative students and professors were harassed, sued and forced to undergo disciplinary hearings just for being Republican or conservative.
In one scene, a conservative professor was told how she would not have been hired if the hiring committee knew she was a Republican!
Indoctrinate-U really does a great job at exposing the intellectual hypocrisy of liberals in academia and I hope to show it on Fordham's campus either this semester or next. I've always maintained that Fordham is much better off than Columbia or NYU, but we still have our fair share of liberal biases.
Visit http://www.indoctrinate-u.com/intro/ for more information on the film.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Jonah Goldberg- even better than expected
Last night (April 9, 2008) the Fordham Colleege Republicans hosted Jonah Goldberg- author of Liberal Fascism and notable conservative commentator. He addressed about 130 students and faculty on his contention that fascism- often labeled a right-wing ideology- is in fact left-wing and a liberal ideology. Even the liberals in the audience loved what he had to say and a number of them even said they were convinced by Jonah's argument. I wasn't very aware of Jonah before this speaking engagement but have become a big fan.
He was not only funny, but had a clear academic and intellectual side to him. I often gripe about conservative commentators' idiocy (read: Ann Coulter) but Jonah is the exact opposite. While he caters to red-meat conservatives, he also possesses the ability to convert the un-saved to conservatism- an ability very much lacking in too many commentators.
Be sure to pick up a copy of his NY Times best-seller, Liberal Fascism.
He was not only funny, but had a clear academic and intellectual side to him. I often gripe about conservative commentators' idiocy (read: Ann Coulter) but Jonah is the exact opposite. While he caters to red-meat conservatives, he also possesses the ability to convert the un-saved to conservatism- an ability very much lacking in too many commentators.
Be sure to pick up a copy of his NY Times best-seller, Liberal Fascism.
On Eliot Spitzer
Eliot Spitzer’s recent demise surprised very few people. Such is the sad state of American politics. We can easily add him to a growing list of American politicians who have been felled or near felled whence caught in sexual scandal: Larry Craig, David Vitter, Jim McGreevy and of course, the great stain maker himself: Bill Clinton.
I will not attempt to philosophize about what makes so many politicians cheat on their wives because at the root of it I believe they are people just like ourselves (except in Bill Clinton’s case. Who wouldn’t cheat on Hillary?) They are just as apt to sin and fall short of our moral models as you or I are. The only difference is since they are in prominent political offices, their scandals make the front page of the New York Times. If the guy down the street cheated on his wife, no one would know about it unless his wife took some unfortunate revenge. Fortunately for most male politicians, they have incredibly loyal wives.
But what causes some cheating politicians to fall when the veil is lifted and others to seemingly become more popular? Certainly legality has much to do with it. Spitzer’s hiring of prostitutes and transporting of women across state lines for sexual purposes was a clear violation of the law and warranted his punishment (being forced from office) if not more. Likewise, McGreevy’s shady financial dealings with his homosexual fling (remember, he was married with multiple children) was a clear ethical and legal violation. It appears then that what people really hate is politicians breaking the law.
But what about Bill Clinton? While his lying to Congress was clearly illegal and he was impeached for doing so, there was nothing inherently illegal about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, and few apart from the religious right really cared about the actual trysts. What people cared about was his lying to Congress and more importantly the American people about his actions. But why did he survive the Congressional onslaught and judgment of the American people? Because no one expected much better of him.
Bill Clinton was a man known to have had affairs before and never once preached about morality or sexual purity. Even the most liberal of us would have to laugh if Clinton had suddenly started preaching about monogamy or faith to one’s spouse. So, when push came to shove, the American people were more than willing to forgive Bill Clinton for his affair(s) since this is what they expected of him.
Bill Clinton’s scandals though pale in comparison to Eliot Spitzer’s for one main reason: Spitzer is a hypocrite, Clinton is not. Before he was Governor of New York, Spitzer was the Attorney General and at least in part made his career out of prosecuting prostitution rings and such. He also campaigned on a platform of impeccable ethics and so when he was caught with his pants down, people simply weren’t willing to look the other way.
It would seem then that the American people are willing to forgive a lot. They are willing to forgive egregious moral slips and even minor illegalities (Clinton’s lying to Congress). What the American people are not willing to forgive though, and rightfully so, is hypocrisy. Politicians be-ware: you can lie, cheat and steal, but don’t tell the American people one thing and do the other.
This is of course an oxymoron, however. How could a person be a politician if they weren’t the least bit hypocritical? One must devote themselves to public service but who knows a governor or president without an ego? At least we can rest assured that this isn’t an American problem only. Just take a look at Nicolas Sarkozy- the president of France. Just recently he dumped his wife and married an Italian super-model.
Ah, Eliot Spitzer- the first French Governor of New York.
I will not attempt to philosophize about what makes so many politicians cheat on their wives because at the root of it I believe they are people just like ourselves (except in Bill Clinton’s case. Who wouldn’t cheat on Hillary?) They are just as apt to sin and fall short of our moral models as you or I are. The only difference is since they are in prominent political offices, their scandals make the front page of the New York Times. If the guy down the street cheated on his wife, no one would know about it unless his wife took some unfortunate revenge. Fortunately for most male politicians, they have incredibly loyal wives.
But what causes some cheating politicians to fall when the veil is lifted and others to seemingly become more popular? Certainly legality has much to do with it. Spitzer’s hiring of prostitutes and transporting of women across state lines for sexual purposes was a clear violation of the law and warranted his punishment (being forced from office) if not more. Likewise, McGreevy’s shady financial dealings with his homosexual fling (remember, he was married with multiple children) was a clear ethical and legal violation. It appears then that what people really hate is politicians breaking the law.
But what about Bill Clinton? While his lying to Congress was clearly illegal and he was impeached for doing so, there was nothing inherently illegal about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, and few apart from the religious right really cared about the actual trysts. What people cared about was his lying to Congress and more importantly the American people about his actions. But why did he survive the Congressional onslaught and judgment of the American people? Because no one expected much better of him.
Bill Clinton was a man known to have had affairs before and never once preached about morality or sexual purity. Even the most liberal of us would have to laugh if Clinton had suddenly started preaching about monogamy or faith to one’s spouse. So, when push came to shove, the American people were more than willing to forgive Bill Clinton for his affair(s) since this is what they expected of him.
Bill Clinton’s scandals though pale in comparison to Eliot Spitzer’s for one main reason: Spitzer is a hypocrite, Clinton is not. Before he was Governor of New York, Spitzer was the Attorney General and at least in part made his career out of prosecuting prostitution rings and such. He also campaigned on a platform of impeccable ethics and so when he was caught with his pants down, people simply weren’t willing to look the other way.
It would seem then that the American people are willing to forgive a lot. They are willing to forgive egregious moral slips and even minor illegalities (Clinton’s lying to Congress). What the American people are not willing to forgive though, and rightfully so, is hypocrisy. Politicians be-ware: you can lie, cheat and steal, but don’t tell the American people one thing and do the other.
This is of course an oxymoron, however. How could a person be a politician if they weren’t the least bit hypocritical? One must devote themselves to public service but who knows a governor or president without an ego? At least we can rest assured that this isn’t an American problem only. Just take a look at Nicolas Sarkozy- the president of France. Just recently he dumped his wife and married an Italian super-model.
Ah, Eliot Spitzer- the first French Governor of New York.
Budget deficit is a major problem
Republicans and conservatives have long lamented the drunken spending of Presidents such as FDR and Lyndon B. Johnson who ushered in vast new spending programs with the New Deal and the Great Society. Our larger society has generally come to associate Democrats and liberals with increased spending and higher taxes and with good reason. But while these men can certainly be criticized for their spending, we must be fair. George Bush is far worse than either.
The White House has predicted that the national debt will reach 9.6 trillion dollars by the end of Bush’s second term. In 2007 alone, the USA spent 250 billion dollars paying off interest on that debt. To put such a number in to perspective, know that we spent approximately 500 billion dollars on the Department of Defense (DoD) in 2007. Essentially then, we spent half of our DoD budget paying debt.
The White House also projects that the budget deficit will reach 400 billion dollars or more in the coming year. That means we could potentially return to the record 2004 deficit of $413 billion.
If these numbers say anything, they say that government is completely and utterly out of control. Congress spends freely and Bush does little to nothing about it. While Bush failed to veto a single Congressional spending bill while the Republicans were in power, he now vetoes spending bills as if only now Congress is out of control. The fact is that the former Republican Congress, the current Democratic one and President Bush himself spend tax payer dollars like they grow on trees.
Now Congress and Bush seem ready to pass a $150 billion tax rebate bill in order to spur economic growth when no economists of note say such a bill will truly work. Rather, Congress and Bush will spend $150 billion to create the appearance that they are trying to help the economy. While it is honorable to want to spur economic growth, Bush and Congress should have the courage of their convictions and not spend $150 billion recklessly when they largely know it will have no impact on the economy.
What makes these deficits and reckless spending bills so egregious though is not that our national leaders don’t listen to economists or understand what they’re saying but that they are knowingly passing on incredible amounts of debt to our generation- debt that no other generation in the past has had to deal with. This is debt that we are legally bound to pay back even though we didn’t have (much of) a say in spending it.
In 2007, almost ½ of American citizens reported salaries less than $30,000 and 1/3 reported salaries of less than $50,000. (Interestingly, these numbers are worse than the year 2000, when Congress actually practiced what it preached.) Although Americans are reporting less income than in the past, our national leaders continue to spend as if our incomes are increasing. Where are we supposed to get the money to pay back China and the other foreign countries that we have become indebted to?
The fact is that America is in very sad financial shape. We spend as if we have an endless stream of revenue and we are growing at less than half the rate of competitors such as China. If we continue on this dangerous road we will surely come to a point where we will no longer be recognized as the greatest nation on Earth.
This is why then it is so important that we all participate in this presidential election. On the Democratic side, we have Senators Clinton and Obama proposing incredible increases in spending (such as universal healthcare, read: socialist healthcare) and on the other side of the aisle we have people like Mitt Romney proposing nearly as ridiculous amounts of spending ($54.2 billion at last check). The one viable candidate in this race who understands the need to cut spending is John McCain.
While Bush may not be the spending hawk I’d like, God forbid a second Clinton presidency. Billary would make GW look like a penny pincher.
The White House has predicted that the national debt will reach 9.6 trillion dollars by the end of Bush’s second term. In 2007 alone, the USA spent 250 billion dollars paying off interest on that debt. To put such a number in to perspective, know that we spent approximately 500 billion dollars on the Department of Defense (DoD) in 2007. Essentially then, we spent half of our DoD budget paying debt.
The White House also projects that the budget deficit will reach 400 billion dollars or more in the coming year. That means we could potentially return to the record 2004 deficit of $413 billion.
If these numbers say anything, they say that government is completely and utterly out of control. Congress spends freely and Bush does little to nothing about it. While Bush failed to veto a single Congressional spending bill while the Republicans were in power, he now vetoes spending bills as if only now Congress is out of control. The fact is that the former Republican Congress, the current Democratic one and President Bush himself spend tax payer dollars like they grow on trees.
Now Congress and Bush seem ready to pass a $150 billion tax rebate bill in order to spur economic growth when no economists of note say such a bill will truly work. Rather, Congress and Bush will spend $150 billion to create the appearance that they are trying to help the economy. While it is honorable to want to spur economic growth, Bush and Congress should have the courage of their convictions and not spend $150 billion recklessly when they largely know it will have no impact on the economy.
What makes these deficits and reckless spending bills so egregious though is not that our national leaders don’t listen to economists or understand what they’re saying but that they are knowingly passing on incredible amounts of debt to our generation- debt that no other generation in the past has had to deal with. This is debt that we are legally bound to pay back even though we didn’t have (much of) a say in spending it.
In 2007, almost ½ of American citizens reported salaries less than $30,000 and 1/3 reported salaries of less than $50,000. (Interestingly, these numbers are worse than the year 2000, when Congress actually practiced what it preached.) Although Americans are reporting less income than in the past, our national leaders continue to spend as if our incomes are increasing. Where are we supposed to get the money to pay back China and the other foreign countries that we have become indebted to?
The fact is that America is in very sad financial shape. We spend as if we have an endless stream of revenue and we are growing at less than half the rate of competitors such as China. If we continue on this dangerous road we will surely come to a point where we will no longer be recognized as the greatest nation on Earth.
This is why then it is so important that we all participate in this presidential election. On the Democratic side, we have Senators Clinton and Obama proposing incredible increases in spending (such as universal healthcare, read: socialist healthcare) and on the other side of the aisle we have people like Mitt Romney proposing nearly as ridiculous amounts of spending ($54.2 billion at last check). The one viable candidate in this race who understands the need to cut spending is John McCain.
While Bush may not be the spending hawk I’d like, God forbid a second Clinton presidency. Billary would make GW look like a penny pincher.
Bush Betrays Basic Conservative Principles
Alan Greenspan, recently retired chairman of the Federal Reserve and life-long Republican, recently lambasted President Bush and the former Republican Congress this past weekend. In his new memoir, Greenspan accuses Bush and company of betraying “principle for power”. He writes, “The Republicans in Congress lost their way. They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither.”
Unfortunately, Greenspan’s criticism is both accurate and true. Over the past six years, the former Republican Congress and President Bush have betrayed basic conservative principles.
Greenspan specifically criticizes “runaway deficit spending” and in particular the fact that the White House and Congress allowed a Clinton-era produced budget surplus to turn in to a Bush-era produced deficit.
One should note my wording. While President Clinton held office when the federal budget moved from red to black (the Clinton-era), it is not fair to say this was his achievement alone. Bush-opponents love to forget that Clinton had a Republican Congress keeping him in line. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and later Denny Hastert wielded a legitimately conservative Congress who practiced what they preached: fiscal discipline.
It appears that the partisan divide in Washington at the time actually produced good policy (at least from Congress). The election of Bush seemed to usher in a new Congress-White House relationship, however. While this new partnership was given the opportunity to execute conservative principles and fix a number of problems once and for all, it failed miserably.
According to Greenspan, Bush “…didn’t want to challenge former House Speaker Dennis Hastert.” Apparently, Bush thought that he could control Hastert better by “not antagonizing him”. Believe it or not, Mr. President, even Republicans need to be antagonized sometimes.
It seems that since Bush did not want to antagonize the Speaker, nor likely, be seen as fighting with other Republicans, that conservative principle fell by the way side, and Republicans, drunk with power, started acting like Democrats.
Unfortunately this behavior extended beyond fiscal discipline (or lack thereof). The collective congressional Republican Party started acting like Clinton and Monica (only with male pages and prostitution rings of course) and government has grown larger and faster than even FDR could have dreamed of.
Perhaps being out of power is the best thing for the Republican Party right now. It’s almost like when your parents sent you to your room when you were younger. You thought about your actions and came out a better person (or at least better behaved). The only difference is our American parents have sent us to our room for at least two years.
Unfortunately, Greenspan’s criticism is both accurate and true. Over the past six years, the former Republican Congress and President Bush have betrayed basic conservative principles.
Greenspan specifically criticizes “runaway deficit spending” and in particular the fact that the White House and Congress allowed a Clinton-era produced budget surplus to turn in to a Bush-era produced deficit.
One should note my wording. While President Clinton held office when the federal budget moved from red to black (the Clinton-era), it is not fair to say this was his achievement alone. Bush-opponents love to forget that Clinton had a Republican Congress keeping him in line. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and later Denny Hastert wielded a legitimately conservative Congress who practiced what they preached: fiscal discipline.
It appears that the partisan divide in Washington at the time actually produced good policy (at least from Congress). The election of Bush seemed to usher in a new Congress-White House relationship, however. While this new partnership was given the opportunity to execute conservative principles and fix a number of problems once and for all, it failed miserably.
According to Greenspan, Bush “…didn’t want to challenge former House Speaker Dennis Hastert.” Apparently, Bush thought that he could control Hastert better by “not antagonizing him”. Believe it or not, Mr. President, even Republicans need to be antagonized sometimes.
It seems that since Bush did not want to antagonize the Speaker, nor likely, be seen as fighting with other Republicans, that conservative principle fell by the way side, and Republicans, drunk with power, started acting like Democrats.
Unfortunately this behavior extended beyond fiscal discipline (or lack thereof). The collective congressional Republican Party started acting like Clinton and Monica (only with male pages and prostitution rings of course) and government has grown larger and faster than even FDR could have dreamed of.
Perhaps being out of power is the best thing for the Republican Party right now. It’s almost like when your parents sent you to your room when you were younger. You thought about your actions and came out a better person (or at least better behaved). The only difference is our American parents have sent us to our room for at least two years.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Image of Che Guevara needs to be Re-thought
This week, Cuba will celebrate the 40th anniversary of Che Guevara’s death. Guevara, idolized by communists and college students alike, was largely responsible for putting Fidel Castro in to power in Cuba, as well as starting revolutions in other countries, including Bolivia. In 1967 he was captured and killed by US-backed Bolivian forces. His face, often emblazoned upon red t-shirts, posters and other paraphernalia, has become a fashion statement within a capitalist society, despite his anti-capitalist ideology.
It is not difficult to find college students, even at our beloved Fordham, wearing these red shirts, seemingly idolizing the man on their chest. But how many students know the truth about Che? How many know that by wearing this shirt, they are advertising and essentially supporting a man not only guilty of fighting against US interests in Latin America, but likewise guilty of killing millions of Cubans, Bolivians and others who opposed his grand revolution?
It may surprise some students to learn that Guevara, despite what our modern culture and celebrities may say about him, executed tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of Cubans who disagreed with him. Ever wonder why there are so many Cubans in Miami and other parts of Florida? Look no further than your friend’s chest. Guevara is largely responsible for establishing the Castro dictatorship, which since having come to power, has indoctrinated the Cuban people with pro-communist garbage, outlawed freedom of speech and caused the flight of millions of Cubans who now seek freedom in the USA.
Students who wear Che’s face plastered across their chest (or anywhere else for that matter) should seriously reconsider their attire. Wearing Che’s face is not unlike wearing Stalin’s, Saddam Hussein’s or Chairman Mao’s. This is a man who is guilty of crimes against humanity as well as being an enemy of the USA. His actions forty plus years ago have resulted in at least one country, a mere 90 miles from our nation’s shores, having to live under a tyrannical dictator. But, at least they have a great health-care system (according to Michael Moore that is).
Ignorance is no excuse for college students to adorn themselves or their dorm rooms with Che. Che’s mass murdering is well documented, and one only needs to talk to Cuban refugees or their descendents to learn of his and Castro’s atrocities. Make no mistake; Cuban refugees don’t risk their lives coming to the USA because Cuba is a great place to live today. They come here because Cuba’s state-run economy is in shambles; they can’t get the proper health-care for them or their children; education largely stops after the sixth grade; they’re tired of the communist indoctrination and propaganda and furthermore, they’re tired of not being able to criticize their government.
In fact, Cuban refugees aren’t merely tired of all these things, ladies and gentlemen. They’re frightened. They’re frightened about what will happen to them and their families if they criticize the Castro government. While Che’s success was unfortunate to say the least, there may be some hope on the horizon. Castro’s health is failing, and he has largely passed on his power to his brother, Raul. Of course, Castro’s death can’t come quick enough for many, but in the meantime, let’s not mock the tragic family histories of our Cuban brethren living in the USA by adorning ourselves with the face of the man responsible for the deaths of their family members.
It is not difficult to find college students, even at our beloved Fordham, wearing these red shirts, seemingly idolizing the man on their chest. But how many students know the truth about Che? How many know that by wearing this shirt, they are advertising and essentially supporting a man not only guilty of fighting against US interests in Latin America, but likewise guilty of killing millions of Cubans, Bolivians and others who opposed his grand revolution?
It may surprise some students to learn that Guevara, despite what our modern culture and celebrities may say about him, executed tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of Cubans who disagreed with him. Ever wonder why there are so many Cubans in Miami and other parts of Florida? Look no further than your friend’s chest. Guevara is largely responsible for establishing the Castro dictatorship, which since having come to power, has indoctrinated the Cuban people with pro-communist garbage, outlawed freedom of speech and caused the flight of millions of Cubans who now seek freedom in the USA.
Students who wear Che’s face plastered across their chest (or anywhere else for that matter) should seriously reconsider their attire. Wearing Che’s face is not unlike wearing Stalin’s, Saddam Hussein’s or Chairman Mao’s. This is a man who is guilty of crimes against humanity as well as being an enemy of the USA. His actions forty plus years ago have resulted in at least one country, a mere 90 miles from our nation’s shores, having to live under a tyrannical dictator. But, at least they have a great health-care system (according to Michael Moore that is).
Ignorance is no excuse for college students to adorn themselves or their dorm rooms with Che. Che’s mass murdering is well documented, and one only needs to talk to Cuban refugees or their descendents to learn of his and Castro’s atrocities. Make no mistake; Cuban refugees don’t risk their lives coming to the USA because Cuba is a great place to live today. They come here because Cuba’s state-run economy is in shambles; they can’t get the proper health-care for them or their children; education largely stops after the sixth grade; they’re tired of the communist indoctrination and propaganda and furthermore, they’re tired of not being able to criticize their government.
In fact, Cuban refugees aren’t merely tired of all these things, ladies and gentlemen. They’re frightened. They’re frightened about what will happen to them and their families if they criticize the Castro government. While Che’s success was unfortunate to say the least, there may be some hope on the horizon. Castro’s health is failing, and he has largely passed on his power to his brother, Raul. Of course, Castro’s death can’t come quick enough for many, but in the meantime, let’s not mock the tragic family histories of our Cuban brethren living in the USA by adorning ourselves with the face of the man responsible for the deaths of their family members.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Columbia Shames itself by hosting Ahmadinejad
This Monday, Columbia University, largely considered one of the best in the world, hosts the visiting President of Iran. Ahmadinejad’s visit has largely been hailed with criticism and opposition, and rightfully so. Columbia’s president, Lee Bollinger, shames himself and his university by not only allowing, but actively inviting Ahmadinejad to speak.
Those who are not familiar with Ahmadinejad should know this: he is not only a radical Islamofascist who supports terrorism against the US, but he is also a leading anti-Semite. In addition to calling the Holocaust a myth, he has called for the complete and utter destruction of Israel. I find it unbelievable at best that Bollinger would allow such a man to speak at a university with such a significant Jewish population, when, if it were up to Ahmadinejad, those very students wouldn’t be alive to listen to him speak.
This should not only be an outrage to every Jewish student at Columbia, but to every man and woman who believes in freedom of religion and pluralism, regardless of religious background.
Perhaps Bollinger should follow the lead of the City of New York, who declined Ahmadinejad’s request to visit Ground Zero. This request in itself is outrage enough to deny providing a speaking opportunity to Ahmadinejad at Columbia. The president of Iran essentially slapped this country in the face by making such a request in the first place. Do not be fooled: Ahmadinejad did not intend to pay respect to any American had he visited the WTC. Instead, any wreath he laid would have been in commemoration of the terrorists who murdered three thousand Americans, and not the victims who died.
There have been two main arguments advanced in support of Ahmadinejad speaking. The first contends that students (and everyone else who hears his speech presumably) will have a valuable educational experience. This is hogwash.
Any one who truly wishes to understand Ahmadinejad’s views needs simply read speeches he has made in his own country. Speeches that include things like, “Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury” and “The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world.” Fortunately for Ahmadinejad, Lee Bollinger is making it just a little easier for that Islamic revolutionary wave to reach NYC.
The second argument that has been advanced is that Ahmadinejad has a right to speak. This argument is even worse than the first. As the head of a member nation, Ahmadinejad has the right to speak at the United Nations. This right does not extend, however, beyond the physical walls of that establishment.
The President of Iran is not an American. Our first amendment does not apply to him, nor should even the notion of free speech be applied so. If you do think Ahmadinejad has a right to speak, then I challenge you to go ask the many Iranians he has had murdered for standing up to his regime how they feel about it. But wait, it doesn’t really seem like Ahmadinejad felt that freedom of speech applied to them, does it?
Those who are not familiar with Ahmadinejad should know this: he is not only a radical Islamofascist who supports terrorism against the US, but he is also a leading anti-Semite. In addition to calling the Holocaust a myth, he has called for the complete and utter destruction of Israel. I find it unbelievable at best that Bollinger would allow such a man to speak at a university with such a significant Jewish population, when, if it were up to Ahmadinejad, those very students wouldn’t be alive to listen to him speak.
This should not only be an outrage to every Jewish student at Columbia, but to every man and woman who believes in freedom of religion and pluralism, regardless of religious background.
Perhaps Bollinger should follow the lead of the City of New York, who declined Ahmadinejad’s request to visit Ground Zero. This request in itself is outrage enough to deny providing a speaking opportunity to Ahmadinejad at Columbia. The president of Iran essentially slapped this country in the face by making such a request in the first place. Do not be fooled: Ahmadinejad did not intend to pay respect to any American had he visited the WTC. Instead, any wreath he laid would have been in commemoration of the terrorists who murdered three thousand Americans, and not the victims who died.
There have been two main arguments advanced in support of Ahmadinejad speaking. The first contends that students (and everyone else who hears his speech presumably) will have a valuable educational experience. This is hogwash.
Any one who truly wishes to understand Ahmadinejad’s views needs simply read speeches he has made in his own country. Speeches that include things like, “Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury” and “The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world.” Fortunately for Ahmadinejad, Lee Bollinger is making it just a little easier for that Islamic revolutionary wave to reach NYC.
The second argument that has been advanced is that Ahmadinejad has a right to speak. This argument is even worse than the first. As the head of a member nation, Ahmadinejad has the right to speak at the United Nations. This right does not extend, however, beyond the physical walls of that establishment.
The President of Iran is not an American. Our first amendment does not apply to him, nor should even the notion of free speech be applied so. If you do think Ahmadinejad has a right to speak, then I challenge you to go ask the many Iranians he has had murdered for standing up to his regime how they feel about it. But wait, it doesn’t really seem like Ahmadinejad felt that freedom of speech applied to them, does it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)