BMW540I6speed
Golden Member
Columbia has every right and responsibility as an institution of higher learning to expose its students to all points of view, even those that the majority finds repugnant. This is a basic thesis of the First Amendment right of Free Speech. Unless Ahmadinejad were to foment a riot by his speech, he has every right to give his views of the world, as warped as they may be.
Is there anyone who fails to see how dangerous and improper this is - not to mention unconstitutional - that government officials threaten and punish universities for hosting speakers whom the officials dislike?
Silencing a speaker like Ahmadinejad is bad but what's worse is the fact that we feel a need to do so. Clearly the need to demonize him stems from the discomfort that any self-reflection would necessarily produce if we were to forget our own identity and self interest and look at the MidEast from a disinterested and rational standpoint.
If, he is as bad as they say, then anything he might say would only act in our favor. If not, then it's our own house that we still need to get in order.
Graduate students at the School for International Policy Administration are getting the best possible training for international diplomacy by hearing from dangerous leaders like Ahmadinejad. We should be encouraging dialogue in our institutions.
When lots of seemingly intelligent people start acting like words can hurt them, you know something is seriously messed up.
Permanent war means permanent war powers, means ultimate and unlimited power. And you can't have permanent war without permanently finding someone to war against. The unending 'war on terror' is too ambiguous to justify outright war with nation-states. It may be used as one of the justifications, but it is not itself tangible enough. They need a scapegoat, a figurehead, a real flesh-and-blood target.
What this really illustrates more than anything else is the true danger to our national character and basic liberties from being in a permanent state of war fighting.
MSNBC was discussing Ahmedinijads pending visit to the US the other day. The banner on the screen read, "Axis Of Evil Leader to speak at Columbia University". Did you know Ahmedinijad was the leader of the entire "axis of evil"?
1. Pick a leader you don't like.
2. Antagonize him enough to turn him into an enemy.
3. Call him an enemy and bomb him.
The unhinged people who control the debate in this country are unconcerned with facts. They are immune to logic. They crave simple narratives that confirm their inner truthiness.
Allowing Ahmedinijad to speak allows him to muddy the waters with inconvenient truths and complicates the monochrome world they create in their own image. So of course they insist that he STFU -- "I know what I know, and no terrist is gonna change mah mind."
They fear the message even more than they fear the messenger. Ignorance is their only refuge from a world full of refutation.
Is there anyone who fails to see how dangerous and improper this is - not to mention unconstitutional - that government officials threaten and punish universities for hosting speakers whom the officials dislike?
Silencing a speaker like Ahmadinejad is bad but what's worse is the fact that we feel a need to do so. Clearly the need to demonize him stems from the discomfort that any self-reflection would necessarily produce if we were to forget our own identity and self interest and look at the MidEast from a disinterested and rational standpoint.
If, he is as bad as they say, then anything he might say would only act in our favor. If not, then it's our own house that we still need to get in order.
Graduate students at the School for International Policy Administration are getting the best possible training for international diplomacy by hearing from dangerous leaders like Ahmadinejad. We should be encouraging dialogue in our institutions.
When lots of seemingly intelligent people start acting like words can hurt them, you know something is seriously messed up.
Permanent war means permanent war powers, means ultimate and unlimited power. And you can't have permanent war without permanently finding someone to war against. The unending 'war on terror' is too ambiguous to justify outright war with nation-states. It may be used as one of the justifications, but it is not itself tangible enough. They need a scapegoat, a figurehead, a real flesh-and-blood target.
What this really illustrates more than anything else is the true danger to our national character and basic liberties from being in a permanent state of war fighting.
MSNBC was discussing Ahmedinijads pending visit to the US the other day. The banner on the screen read, "Axis Of Evil Leader to speak at Columbia University". Did you know Ahmedinijad was the leader of the entire "axis of evil"?
1. Pick a leader you don't like.
2. Antagonize him enough to turn him into an enemy.
3. Call him an enemy and bomb him.
The unhinged people who control the debate in this country are unconcerned with facts. They are immune to logic. They crave simple narratives that confirm their inner truthiness.
Allowing Ahmedinijad to speak allows him to muddy the waters with inconvenient truths and complicates the monochrome world they create in their own image. So of course they insist that he STFU -- "I know what I know, and no terrist is gonna change mah mind."
They fear the message even more than they fear the messenger. Ignorance is their only refuge from a world full of refutation.
