Letters to the Editor
robotempire
Published Letters: 49 Editor's Choice: 9
-
Speaking of ideological schisms...
[Read the article: Ahmadinejad, big man on campus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How hilarious is it that the whack-job liberal extremist salonistas are outraged Ahmadinejad didn't get red carpet and a lei when he arrived on campus?
Meanwhile the young and liberal ideologues on campus completely approved of Bollinger's comments.
Talk about the Jewish "ideological schisms" all you want, but there's clearly a rift between the extremists who frequent the comments sections of this magazine and the liberal realists who understand that yes, Virginia, sometimes madmen and "agents provocateurs" need to be confronted with reality.
I, for one, as a conservative, had no problems with Ahmadinejad being invited. That is Columbia's option to do so. Even Bush said he had no issue with it. I think only conservative extremists would have an issue with it. However, what I think is funny is that everyone who said inviting him was a matter of free speech concerns, but when Bollinger exercised his free speech, suddenly he's a Zionist conspiratorial pig.
Would Bush have been equally excoriated? Almost certainly not -- the gutting would have been much more severe and from more corners, i.e. students. But when that had happened all of you communists would have been cheering and hooting and waving hammer-and-sickle banners proudly proclaiming that free speech had conquered Bush.
But here you are, blinded by the hatred of the U.S., so blinded that you're willing to root for the extremist leader of an oppressed people. You're rooting for his nuclear ambitions and his funding of terrorist activities around the world (i.e. Hezbollah, et al.).
Good job. Thank you for highlighting perfectly the ideological schism between the fanatical salonistas (and their ilk) and mainstream culture. Fortunately, America isn't so divided as the news (and Salon.com) would have you think.
-
Let's be honest here.
[Read the article: My questions for President Ahmadinejad]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If Bollinger had taken the same tone with President Bush (or VP Cheney or former AG Gonzalez) the Salonista fanatics would be lining up to fellate him. But because Bollinger excoriated someone who opposes American ideals, he's suddenly the enemy. Columbia is not, has never been, a bastion of Republican cheerleading. No major American university is.
Also, for the charges that Salon is somehow conspiring with Republicans (hahahahahaha, PLEASE, and you say Bollinger has no critical thinking skills?) by not reprinting Ahmadinejad's "responses," do none of you read wire copy, the WaPo or NYT? They all ran stories about how the Iranian president did not answer any questions but instead just got offended about how rudely he was treated and danced around the topics.
Again, if Bush had done the same he would be eaten alive by these selfsame fanatics and extremists who haunt these comment sections.
I'm astounded at the hypocrisy here. To be honest, I am actually surprised that Columbia addressed Ahmadinejad in such a way. I'm surprised but my respect level for them has gone through the roof. Now, if they were to address Bush like this, after this event? I would take it for granted that it is a legitimate pursuit of academic and intellectual honesty instead of pursuit of an agenda. This is intellectual honesty you lot of loonies are incapable of adopting.
-
Fair's fair!
[Read the article: Ahmadinejad, big man on campus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But when that had happened all of you communists would have been cheering and hooting and waving hammer-and-sickle banners proudly proclaiming that free speech had conquered Bush.
Sorry what's that? I was too busy smoking pot and eating granola bars to hear what you were saying.
It must be nice to have your entire worldview contained in a single page Word document that you can just copy and paste from over and over again. You need to update your schtick a little though, it's very 80s. Invoking "hammer-and-sickle banners" to ridicule supposed Iran supporters is a painful mixed metaphor, you should choose one line of vapid insults and stick with it.
hahahaha, yeah, that's a definitely a fair criticism. I don't know why I went to the USSR for that one. I'll have my press people issue a retraction ;)
By the way, dismissing my criticism of the vast majority of the vocal Salon.com commenters as left-wing fanatics with the "pot & granola" line is well-played but completely off-target. Most of the commenters are, in fact, completely out of step with mainstream liberalism (and American culture at large). This Ahmadinejad flap is no different.
-
Come now...
[Read the article: My questions for President Ahmadinejad]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Which you've shown exactly zero evidence of outside of your personal conjecture about what people would do in a hypothetical scenario.
We're not in a court of law. Circumstantial evidence points directly here to the fact that if Bush got the EXACT same treatment as Ahmadinejad, Salonistas would be decrying it as "letting him off easy." All these remarks about "lack of hospitality" just make me laugh out loud. It's not hospitality that is the real concern for these particular extremists, it's that a man whose values run diametrically opposed to those of the U.S. didn't get sexual favors on stage.
Also, guess what -- most people want "nutshell" summaries of events. That's been one of the basic missions of journalism for recorded journalistic history. Provide a record, not a transcription. Citing a proclivity for reading news as some kind of moral weakness is idiotic.
-
Iranian scholarship
[Read the article: Ahmadinejad, big man on campus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, while strictly speaking Ahmadinejad is not a dictator, and by all accounts (read Ray Takeyh's dry-but-readworthy "Hidden Iran") not necessarily a powerful president, the fact remains that he is a head of state, and so the offenses of his state against the people residing therein fall on his shoulders. At least in a public sense.
Any rough handling or "inhospitality" is completely understandable. Beyond the "you have all the hallmarks of a petty and cruel dictator" and "intellectual dishonesty" lines, most of it was a scholarly inquisition. Cogently-stated points with succinct questions. I don't think that's too far off base of the forum.
I say bravo to Columbia. I would welcome such treatment of any head of state, including our own.
Now if they'll just let ROTC back on campus.