waagnfnp

Academia & Wingnuts & Human Rights Posted by christian h., 26 Sep 2007 05:05 am

Lee Bollinger: American Hero?

Trackbacks

Responses to “Lee Bollinger: American Hero?”

1. on 26 Sep 2007 at 5:17 am 1. christian h. said …

   Here is an article by Jonathan Steele on the Guardian website discussing the “wipe Israel off the map” issue with various links.

   I’ll have another very long day, so be a little patient with me if I don’t react to any comments immediately, eventually I will.

2. on 26 Sep 2007 at 5:38 am 2. christian h. said …

   There are a number of good letters and even - gasp - a somewhat reasonable column by Maureen Dowd on this issue in today’s New York Times. I’m glad to say that it seems I was wrong in my impression of near-universal praise for Bollinger’s actions. I’ll quote one letter here in its entirety, because it is so on point:

   Columbia University’s treatment of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is appalling. It would have been understandable had Columbia simply condemned Mr. Ahmadinejad’s ideas or remarks in a debate or discussion forum.

   However, not only did the university set the tone for the forum by launching ad hominem attacks, but the school then asserts that the forum was intended for the ideal of open discussion of ideas — a discussion that Columbia aborted in its infancy.

   In doing so, Columbia has demonstrated again the temptation of Orientalism: for us to humiliate and caricature a feared Other, put it on open display, and then pat ourselves on the back for being enlightened enough to make the display case.

   Columbia needs to either fully exclude or fully include Mr. Ahmadinejad in its discussions of him. Setting him up as a simple straw man to be knocked down does a disservice to academic discourse. Michael Chen

3. on 26 Sep 2007 at 6:38 am 3. Kiera PSI said …

   Having invited a man to speak, it is unconscionable that he was verbally attacked by his host. I don’t care who he is or was or what he is or is not guilty of or what kind of pressure you’re under from any faction. Once you issue an invitation in good faith to give someone a forum to speak, you should be courteous.

   Personally, I would never have invited him to speak in the first place given his history in general and his opinion on the Holocaust, but that’s just me. If I’d made the mistake of not knowing what he was all about and had done so, and couldn’t rescind the invitation, I’d have invited a speaker with a countering position to provide balance, and asked that speaker to just present their side without attacking the first guest.

   I’m just appalled. Period. What a freaking coward and wuss Lee Bollinger is.

4. on 26 Sep 2007 at 7:03 am 4. JP Stormcrow said …

   Juan Cole is certainly no fan of Ahmadinejad or his political antecedents:
   

   I should again underline that I personally despise everything Ahmadinejad stands for, not to mention the odious Khomeini, who had personal friends of mine killed so thoroughly that we have never recovered their bodies.

   But he did take the time to at least give context and a correct translation of the supposed Israel must be wiped off the map quote.

   The phrase he then used as I read it is “The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).”

   …

   Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that “Israel must be wiped off the map” with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time.

   Some might call this a quibble, but the “extreme” translation is part-and-parcel of a constant drumbeat of demonization of Iran. Cui bono? (who benefits) is the question to ask.

5. on 26 Sep 2007 at 8:03 am 5. christian h. said …

   JP, precisely. It usually works like this: (1) read speech by A. (2) ignore that he’s quoting Khomeini and translate in the most inflammatory way possible (3) use the “known fact” that Iran is “racing to construct a nculear bomb” (quote from today’s Post editorial) to conclude that A. actually threatened to physically destroy Israel (as opposed to abolishing that particular state - as I am fond of reminding people, the Soviet Union was “wiped off the map”) (4) claim that this shows that A. is planning to “murder millions” (since there are millions living in Israel).

   I am unsure about the whole concept of inviting world leaders to academic settings, given that they cannot possibly be expected to engage in an open discussion. That said, I don’t find Ahmadinejad any more odious that numerous others Columbia had speak in that series.

6. on 26 Sep 2007 at 10:32 am 6. Oaktown Girl said …

   Thanks for this post, Christian. I was appalled when I heard clips of Bollinger on the radio. I swear, I thought he was talking about Bush. More on that later if I get the chance. Thanks for finding those references, (#4) JP.

   I can certainly understand the initial impulse to just not let the guy speak, but there are some very important factors that need to be taken into account. First and foremost is that BushCo has been launching an all-out campaign to get Americans psyched-up to bomb Iran. Iran’s reward for being a strong U.S supporter/sympathizer post-9/11, and for going into Afghanistan with us, was to be called an Axis of Evil by the Chimp, and the official beginning of the demonization of Ahmadinejad. We have to ask ourselves, “What’s really going on here, and what the hell is the agenda?” Bombing Iran would be beyond disastrous. BushCo’s doing everything in their power to dehumanize Ahmadinejad (which is why he wasn’t allowed to lay a wreath at the site of the World Trade Center), so bombing his country sits well with the American people. In the face of this, we really, really need to let Ahmadinejad be heard in this country so Americans can hear him for themselves, not just what the neocons want us to hear.

   The other major problem with saying “don’t let him speak at the University” is the slippery slope of who we do and don’t allow to speak, and which “crazy” opinions are acceptable and which are not. if invited, major world leaders should be allowed to speak at university campuses – the very bastions of what is supposed to be a free-form forum for ideas. Are we going to say college students are just too infantile to be allowed to hear speakers who hold certain ideas with which we don’t agree? If so, doesn’t’ that defeat the very purpose of a university?

7. on 26 Sep 2007 at 1:43 pm 7. Seattle said …

   I don’t think I’ve ever heard a speaker invited to a forum attacked quite so thoroughly as was Ahmadinejad. It made me feel like the concept of “guest” has disappeared. And in a short spin through local radio stations the next morning I heard ridiculous visceral reactions-everything from people making fun of the difficulty of pronouncing his name to kudos for the attack-a kind of “that’s what he deserved” sort of thing. Some members of the public are so happy to have their aggression redirected to one country after another in that region. And it’s oh so easy.

   Make no mistake, I have no doubt that the leadership of every country around Israel would like the last 50 years to be different. I also have no doubt that in a region with so many environmental challenges, they would have found plenty to fight about even if Israel had never existed. Just imagine for a moment if there was a massive civil war in the US and afterwards, all the remaining descendents of our European and English/Irish forebearers decided to head back to their ancestors’ home continent, carve out a slice of it based on history and declared an independent country in, say, Germany? With the blessings and financial/military assistance of a world power. Europe would be a mess. Germans would be pushed out of the new country into neighboring countries, neighboring countries would have to absorb them somehow, and the how would the French, English, Spanish, Polish, etc., feel about that? What sort of unrest would that cause?

   Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia I’m sure to promote the position of Iran (that’s ee-ron for all of you that are still pronouncing it eye-ran), a country with historical memories of a great empire. How many countries and their citizens wish a return of Empire? Their day in the sun? Hell, Wikipedia has a whole entry devoted to that list:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires

   So let the man talk and thank him for coming. I don’t need anyone to attack him in a public forum. I can evaluate his statements for myself.

8. on 26 Sep 2007 at 1:46 pm 8. Oaktown Girl said …

   Digby (scroll down in the post a bit) calls our attention to this by Rick Perlstein:

   But look now what we have lost. Now when a bad guy crosses our threshhold, America becomes a pants-piddling mess.

   Iran’s president speaks at a great American university. That university’s president, in the act of introducing his lecture, whines like a baby bereft of his pacifier that his guest is a big meany poopy-head.
   (snip)

   Up in Albany, Democratic leader Sheldon Silver treat the students of this great university like ten years olds, threatening to defund Columbia University lest censors like himself prove unable to shut the poor children’s ears to difficult speech. (What, was he worried they’d be convinced, join the jihad?)
   (snip)

   How cowardly our conservative Republic of Fear has made us. How we tremble at the mere touch of a challenge.

   It’s very much worth it to read the whole article by Perlstein to give some much needed historical context to what’s happening now, and how far we’ve fallen.

9. on 26 Sep 2007 at 2:13 pm 9. JP Stormcrow said …

   Towards the end of an insightful piece on the 50th anniversary of Little Rock at the Campaign for America’s Future website, Digby makes the connection of how the “War on Terror” has helped push conservatives into more openly embracing racism in recent years. If it wasn’t for us/them narratives they’d ahve no narratives at all.

   Perhaps it’s just the old twin pillars of right-wing populism raising their hideous heads: economic insecurity leading to a nativist resentment toward foreigners and African Americans. I suspect it has something to do with the last six years of endless fearmongering and racist subtext of the rhetoric of the War On Terror (it doesn’t matter which ones attacked us!). The war in Iraq has left many of these conservatives unsatisfied and unfulfilled, so they’ve turned to those of darker hue closer to home.

10. on 26 Sep 2007 at 2:35 pm 10. Oaktown Girl said …

    I don’t need anyone to attack him in a public forum. I can evaluate his statements for myself.

    See? It’s just that kind of thinking that emboldens our enemies.

    Thinking for yourself, indeed! Oh no you don’t. Not in Bush’s America, young lady!!!

11. on 26 Sep 2007 at 2:57 pm 11. Seattle said …

    Well, you know, my niece, who just got out of the hospital is half Iranian (ee-ron-ee-an) and she’s got a whole passle of green card relatives from the country living up and down our west coast. Fully half of her generation in that family were born here in the US. I’ve known them all for years and it’s interesting how they all were gung ho for Bush when he first attacked Iraq (ee-rock)and are now watching all the same rhetoric heading Iran’s (ee-ron’s)way. These are the folks that fought with Iraq for how long? How come only Americans get to suffer from post traumatic stress syndrome?

12. on 26 Sep 2007 at 4:27 pm 12. Oaktown Girl said …

    Seattle - oh you bring up an excellent point. In 2000 Bush had big support among many Middle Easterners, esp. among the more religious Muslims . It brings up bad memories: I remember distinctly sometime back in late ‘99/early 2000 hearing several members of the local Islamic community praising Bush, most often siting his support for prayer in school. I just wanted to scream at the top of my lungs, “DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THIS MAN IS NOT YOUR FRIEND??!!”

    Most Muslims know infinitely more about Christian theology than most Christians know about Islam. In fact, most Christians (and Americans in general) know next to nothing about Islamic theology. As a result, Muslims tend to feel a sense of community with Christians, being that they have a solid understanding of their common religious heritage.

    Well, after Bush’s first term, most American Muslims finally understood that most American Christian fundamentalists see Muslims as devil worshipers on a path to hell, and must be eliminated.

13. on 26 Sep 2007 at 4:34 pm 13. christian h. said …

    The racism issue is very important. I also see it loom large in the German discourse on the “War on Terror” and Muslim immigration in Europe and so forth: racist attitudes aimed at “Ayrabs” and “Muslims” are officially sanctioned, and often reach deeply into liberal circles. To some extent this has been the case for a long time, of course (just look at the depictions of Arabs and Persians in action movies), but since the advent of the GWOT is has become much more open and prevalent, and may I say, more conscious.

    My feeling is that this freedom to embrace one racism makes people feel freer to express other racisms, too (I am going with the theory that racism - a structural, material reality - makes the racist, not the other way around; meaning, the racism is there, but its open expression is often suppressed).

    I strongly believe that among the things the new left got right was the realization that racism at home and imperialism abroad are intimately connected, and that the fight against both needs to be undertaken simultaneously.

14. on 26 Sep 2007 at 4:45 pm 14. Seattle said …

    “True Lies”: The movie I love to hate. And while we’re at it, “Into the Night”. Painful depictions of ‘the bad guys’.

15. on 26 Sep 2007 at 6:28 pm 15. JP Stormcrow said …

    And while we’re at it, “Into the Night”.

    I remember hating that movie (and I didn’t know the name, just remembered Jeff Goldblum being in it) primarily because of the “Ha Ha” deaths of the Iranians. One of the first comments about it at IMDB starts: This movie is a lighthearted romp! It is filled with laughs…**. And then there was Michael Medved’s outrage that the bad guys in Casino Royale were not “Muslim killers”.

    **I do admit that I am not completely consistent here - there are movies that I find do blend violence and humor well of course, there was just something about the way it was done in “Into the Night” with the stereotypes that still grates 20 years later.

16. on 26 Sep 2007 at 6:36 pm 16. JP Stormcrow said …

    OT. But if you don’t regularly stop by TheValve, you should do so to catch Bill’s Opus Graffiticus in three parts. Highly recommended. I was thinking of starting a series on “the sacred WAAGNFNP geographies” (State College, 3TopsLand, Bay Area, Seattle, Northern New Mexico), but Bill has definitely stolen the march on the fascinating vicinity of 3Tops.

17. on 26 Sep 2007 at 10:53 pm 17. spyder said …

    Perlstein hinted at it; i really think Bollinger’s comments were targeted at those in Albany and DC who were threatening the university’s funding for this event. Clearly Ahmadinejad wasn’t thrown off by the charade, and indeed made an interesting retort about the presumed intended rudeness. My concern is that Bollinger perceived that he needed to make such a statement, to attempt to placate the shrill idiotic voices demanding some sort of penance.

    As a means of negotiating some degree of balance in this odd equation i offer the following Youtube video of the President of Bolivia Evo Morales on the Daily Show. His comments near the end are truly amazing, Kennedyesque in their grand nature:

18. on 27 Sep 2007 at 12:15 am 18. JP Stormcrow said …

    Gee, where would Morales get the idea that he might be considered as part of an “Axis of Evil”.

    In a recent press conference, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld described Bolivia’s president-elect, Evo Morales, as a new member of a “Latin American Axis of Evil.” Rumsfeld has used the same designation for two of Latin America’s most infamous leftist leaders, Cuba’s Fidel Castro and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.

19. on 27 Sep 2007 at 6:20 am 19. christian h. said …

    Wow, that was an amazing interview - thanks for bringing it to our attention, spyder.

20. on 27 Sep 2007 at 7:21 am 20. JP Stormcrow said …

    Did some searchoing and reading on Evo Morales. What I am struck by is how even “liberal” commentators accept the framing in regard to Bolivia that “American” interests are basically summed up by 1) avoiding nationalization of natural resources and 2) continuing current coca eradication programs (with their imperialistic ties into the military). How freaking narrowly can “we” define “interests” for God’s sakes?

    Here is an interesting read from March of this year on Bolivia and coca from the Drug War Chronicle.

    I did admire this quote from the Bolivian foreign minister:

    “Coca is not dangerous, coca is not poison. We will work bilaterally with countries that support our position. And countries that now try to impede us, like the US, well, perhaps we can send them some coca, too.”

    My head hurts just thinking about what the insane “War on Drugs” does to us as a country. In this case it is basically All ur tradition of centuries of coca cultivation are belong to us. Where belong to us means So that we can differentially “eradicate” it in a way that props up repressive elements of your society while otherwise managing supply to a variety of purposes to our advantage.

21. on 27 Sep 2007 at 8:32 am 21. spyder said …

    I loved Evo’s remark that we need to inspire a world where nations work to keep people alive and healthy.

    Eric Alterman’s take on the Bollinger question:

    But having watched the TPM-posted video of Bollinger’s introduction, I think in this case it demonstrated a kind of boorishness and self-satisfaction that the rest of the world finds so annoying — and frequently dangerous in Americans — and represented a significant lapse of judgment on the part of Bollinger. At the end of the event, Bollinger congratulated himself and the Columbia community by once again criticizing the speaker for not answering all the questions that was put to him and adding, “But I think we can all be pleased that his appearance here demonstrates Columbia’s deep commitment to free expression and debate.” But how in the world can it be considered “free expression and debate” when before the speaker is introduced, he is personally insulted and attacked? It would have been right and proper for Bollinger to ask the Iranian president to defend — or at least present some evidence for — his loony view. But that’s not what he did. He sought to undermine him before he could utter a word, and did so in extremely personal terms. I have never seen any speaker introduced in this fashion before and I can’t believe it did not have a counter-productive effect in the Arab world and elsewhere — at least if we were seeking to demonstrate our commitment to free speech.

    I worry that this happened because of the sustained campaign against Columbia by right-wing American Jews who seek to shut down academic discussion of the Palestinian question because they cannot control it. The insane focus on Columbia in The New York Sun is a real pain in the neck for Columbia and no doubt interferes with its fundraising. It is largely without intellectual merit — the idea that it is difficult to assert one’s Jewishness at Columbia University in the city of New York is among the most absurd notions to be found anywhere in American political discourse — but it is a given in the Sun, the New York Post, Commentary, Marty Peretz’s blog, and lots of places I can imagine but cannot document so I’ll keep them to myself. I approved when Bollinger took the lead in denouncing the boycott of Israeli scholars — which also might have been partially inspired by this campaign. (I don’t mean the denunciation; I mean identifying so publicly with it.) But this was tacky and demonstrated, in my view, the opposite of what Bollinger found so worthy of congratulation of Columbia and its community.

22. on 27 Sep 2007 at 10:01 am 22. James Killus said …

    There are a few interesting points about Ahmadinejad that are rarely made in the public discourse.

    First of all, he is an elected official, President of Iran, but, unlike our own President, he is neither commander-in-chief nor head of state. Those functions are reserved for the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. All of which means that, first, treating Ahmadinejad’s statements (ignoring for the moment the fact that most of the things attributed to him weren’t exactly what he said) as if they represented Iranian policy is incorrect, ignorance for the most part, but those who know better are simply lying.

    Second, Ahmadinejad is a populist, representing those who are neither the theocratic elite nor the cultural (”Western leaning,” perhaps) elite of Iran. This can only mean that the things he says play well with the non-urban masses in Iran–rather like the political base of our own elected President. I elect not to put irony quotes around “elected” here for the same reason I did not do so for Ahmadinejad.

    Finally, the ourage that Ahmadinejad engenders abroad seems to be a major source of his political power. Anyone really concerned with undercutting him politically would therefore ignore him as much as possible. Those who do not are either foolish, or playing to their own narrow political base, or have an perceived interest in maintaining Ahmadinejad as a boogeyman.

    Actually, these aren’t mutually exclusive; indeed, I’m voting for all three, and can I have “Foreign Policy Assholes and Weenies” for $500, Alec?

23. on 27 Sep 2007 at 11:45 am 23. christian h. said …

    Regarding Bolivia, it is important to note that the old ruling elites are not about to give up without a fight, and neither are their allies in North America and Europe.

    Stewart asked in the interview how Morales was making the changes acceptable to them, but of course they aren’t acceptable and can be made so only by surrendering their essence.

    There have been considerable delays in the work of the constituent assembly, and lately also rumors of a possible coup, of management work-stoppages (a tactic well-known from Venezuela), as well as demands for autonomy from the rich regions ( = provinces) such as Santa Cruz. The opposition is supported - surprise! - with money from the usual US fronts, such as NED and USAID.

    Here’s a piece by Eva Gollinger at Venezuelanalysis (a site broadly, but not blindly, supportive of the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela) describing NED and USAID meddling in Venezuela and Bolivia, and this is an article by Frederico Fuentes of Green Left on ZNet on the need for solidarity with Bolivia.

24. on 27 Sep 2007 at 11:53 am 24. christian h. said …

    Sorry, more reading material: this is an interview (also on ZNet) with a true hero, Malalei Joya, an Afghan woman activist and member of parliament - now suspended for her protest against the stacking of that body with warlords - recorded during her recent visit to Germany.

25. on 27 Sep 2007 at 12:26 pm 25. JP Stormcrow said …

    Another interesting item re: Ahmadinejad.
    This is a letter from 7 chancellors and presidents of Iranian universities and research centers to Bollinger. It includes 10 questions. There is of course “spin” in it, but it is a good vehicle to at least provide a hint of how to put on the shoes of the Iranians and walk around in them for a bit. In some ways I think this is what the no-nothings on all sides want to avoid - any hint of empathy - any possibility of people seeing the shared humanity, because who knows where that might lead. Fear Comity! is a succinct characterization of the Modern Criminal Republican Party.

    A couple of the questions:

    1- Why did the US media put you under so much pressure to prevent Mr. Ahmadinejad from delivering his speech at Columbia University? And why have American TV networks been broadcasting hours of news reports insulting our president while refusing to allow him the opportunity to respond? Is this not against the principle of freedom of speech?

    8- Why do America’s closest allies in the Middle East come from extremely undemocratic governments with absolutist monarchical regimes?

26. on 27 Sep 2007 at 1:47 pm 26. JP Stormcrow said …

    Found this little blurb via Naomi Wolf at Firedoglake:

    Contractors take on expanded role in drug war - and yep, one of the contractors is … wait for it …. Blackwater.

    And a couple of more Blackwater tidbits just today (you could run a Blackwater blog)1)Blackwater Tops Firms in Iraq in Shooting Rate and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) has released a study finding that Blackwater improperly prepared its contractors for traveling through Fallujah in March 2004 — a trip that proved to be fatal

    Internal Blackwater reviews and eyewitness accounts obtained by Waxman’s oversight committee conclude that the company sent its four employees to Fallujah in what one disgusted Blackwater colleague called “unarmored, underpowered vehicles.”

    I’m sure they will be winning hearts and minds everywhere as they bring their battle-tested culturally-sensitive act to the Drug Supply Management War effort.

27. on 27 Sep 2007 at 1:58 pm 27. Seattle said …

    “Stewart asked in the interview how Morales was making the changes acceptable to them, but of course they aren’t acceptable and can be made so only by surrendering their essence.”

    This was the one part of the interview that bothered me. He didn’t answer that question. And Stewart didn’t press him to do so when he didn’t. Underlining once again that Stewart’s show is about comedy, not real journalism.

28. on 27 Sep 2007 at 2:10 pm 28. christian h. said …

    I suspect that Morales knew very well not to answer that question; after all, the correct answer is “I don’t care; they need to be forced to accept it” - but that is an answer that for some reason doesn’t go down well with some Western liberals - mostly those that have power - who have some kind of mythic picture of people like Nelson Mandela, or, domestically, Martin Luther King, and never fail to praise their assumed astuteness at creating a more just society at the expense of… nobody. Bullshit, it doesn’t work that way (actually, it’s debatable if South Africa isn’t an example showing that it does not, in fact, work - but that’s for another post).

29. on 27 Sep 2007 at 2:12 pm 29. Seattle said …

    Actually, Zimbabwe-formerly Rhodesia- came to mind.

30. on 27 Sep 2007 at 2:19 pm 30. spyder said …

    A couple of years ago there was a video circulating around that was essentially a travel documentary of Iran filmed in 2003 or so. Its essential message was that any efforts to “bomb” that country would be destroying a world that is remarkably similar to ours. People living lives in large cities, enjoying varied recreational activities, diversity of faiths, haute couture and total covering side by side, etc., were the central focus of the cameras. I can’t find it at the moment, though i know that it rests buried in my hundreds and hundreds of bookmarks. I will keep looking, but if someone has a more immediate source link, please put it up. It ends of course with a glorious GNF.

    The US Senate vote to name the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution-IRG, a terrorist organization is tantamount to the EU declaring that the US Department of Homeland Security and all of the agencies (FBI, Coast Guard, Secret Service, ATF, DOJ, et al) wrapped up into that group is a terrorist organization (which is possibly debatable if it wasn’t so tragic and funny). Such a declaration then presupposes that those Iranians detained by the US are now enemy combatants and will be treated the same as all GITMO folks. The problem arises that most citizens of Iran have served some time in either the IRG or is various feeder organizations including the Basij, and therefore could be assumed to now be terrorists. Compounding that we must question whether naming for the first time official armed units of a sovereign state on list of banned terrorist groups, is in the best interest of the US. One could propose that Blackwater be so identified and perhaps even US special forces operating on black budgets. Maybe the US Army itself because, well.. I mean, setting out bullets, hand-grenades, and packets of C4 on some Basra street corner, and then using snipers to kill the kids picking them up, is not exactly a rules of engagement sort of activity.

31. on 27 Sep 2007 at 3:55 pm 31. Seattle said …

    Anyone placing bets yet on how many fronts in how many countries Bush will have us engaged in when he leaves office?

32. on 27 Sep 2007 at 4:37 pm 32. Kiera PSI said …

    I’m betting the entire E.U. will be a “front” if he keeps it up.

33. on 27 Sep 2007 at 4:48 pm 33. christian h. said …

    Talking about NED and company - remember when we supported that totally liberal democratic young up-and-comer in Georgia against the pro-Russian president? Well, now our guy’s former defense minister has claimed he was ordered to have several people killed - and was promptly arrested. Apparently, our man, while on really bad term with Putin, is copying his methods. That’s what democracy promotion is all about! Help one corrupt faction of the ruling class overthrow another.

34. on 27 Sep 2007 at 4:57 pm 34. Oaktown Girl said …

    Anyone placing bets yet on how many fronts in how many countries Bush will have us engaged in when he leaves office?

    Seattle - that’s why we have a mathematician (christian h.) on the High Council. Sure, we can place bets, but determining an a winner is going to be no easy task!

    A couple of years ago there was a video circulating around that was essentially a travel documentary of Iran filmed in 2003 or so. Its essential message was that any efforts to “bomb” that country would be destroying a world that is remarkably similar to ours.

    spyder - this is a good (if painful) reminder of just how ignorant Americans are of Middle Eastern countries, and how willfully our corporate media keeps us so. Americans’ idea of Iraq was that is was basically a primitive place. They had (and still have) no idea that Iraq was full of engineers, doctors, professors, high technology, was SECULAR, and that the education and professional status of women was encouraged. I’m not saying Iraq was perfect by any means, but it just drives me crazy when I hear offhanded remarks that Iraq’s not much different now than before the invasion.

    I could go on and on about that, but I’ll just mention one more related point: Iraq didn’t need any damn foreign contractor to rebuild everything we destroyed. They had all the people and skills to do it themselves. But no, let’s give Halliburton those contracts and jobs. This is one issue that isn’t talked about nearly enough.

35. on 27 Sep 2007 at 9:37 pm 35. Zeus said …

    I won’t be accepting any of Bollinger’s invitations to come over to his house and share a little social time. Can you just see it? “Welcome to my house you little sh-tfaced turdball. Let me introduce you to some of my friends. Hey everybody, this is the guy I told you about, you know the f-head with the weird ideas and even weirder looks. See what a hate-mongering sonofabitch he is even before he opens his mouth?”

    My God, and I do mean, God. Where has our dignity gone? I feel like I’m stuck inside of some KKK hazing session, with everyone laughing way too loud at totally unfunny and barbaric racist jokes. Is this true, this bizarre performance. Do we now have proof of the Republic of Fear? We appear to have nothing, no respect, no honor left, that we can take any high road. Now the low road is the high road. Now we can’t “afford” a high road, right. We need indefinite detention and torture. What the hell for? To prove to ourselves that no one can put one over on us? Well, take a close look, because Ahmadinejad just did. He played us like a fiddle, using us as a foil. Looking cool, calm, collected, even sympathetic while the frothing and arrogant and bloviating self-righteous around him only seemed to elevate his discourse, not challenge it.

    We don’t rely on integrity anymore, just bullying, the exact opposite of integrity. Taking the high road does not mean rolling over; it means standing up. But just as surely it means not taking a sh-t on someone else’s head. Let’s engage not only Ahmad’s silliness (”No homos here”) and claims about the pacifism that is Iran, but let us be willing to challenge our own. The best comedian, and the best leader is one who can turn his own vulnerabilities into self-deprecating strengths, and disarm those who would leverage what he or she might be hiding. And right now this country needs to quit hiding and quit yelling and quit bombing and start growing the hell up and start engaging.

    Citizen Zeus

36. on 28 Sep 2007 at 11:06 am 36. spyder said …

    this is a good (if painful) reminder of just how ignorant Americans are of Middle Eastern countries, and how willfully our corporate media keeps us so.
    Controlling a very small percent of the US population equates to controlling the political output of the US government. The following helps explain the recent votes in the Senate, and the efforts across the middle of this nation to make sure that population is kept restricted and “offline.” David Sirota writes today about why that oppressive ignorance is critically important to the “powers-that-be.”
    

    Using Census figures, Geoghegan discovers that the 11 percent of Americans living in the least populated states have enough Senate votes — 41 — to sustain a filibuster. Yes, 89 percent of the population may support a policy, but 11 percent of the population has the senators to block that policy’s enactment. When you go further than Geoghegan and consider the election-focused mindset of politicians, you see the situation is even more absurd.

    Lawmakers trying to keep their jobs only need support from a majority of those who turn out to vote. In those 21 least populated states with filibuster power, that majority is typically about 7 million voters, based on turnout data. That’s just 3 percent of America’s total voting-age population wielding enough Senate representation to stop almost anything.

    To see how this works, consider what followed a July CBS News/New York Times poll that found 69 percent of Americans support Congress either enacting a timetable for troop withdrawals from Iraq or defunding the war completely. When the Senate voted on timetable legislation that month, 47 senators voted “no” — enough to filibuster.

    Should we be surprised that a policy supported by more than two thirds of America drew opposition from almost half of the Senate? No, not when we consider the math.

    Those 47 senators understand they don’t answer to mainstream public opinion.
    They rely on merely 16 percent of the nation’s total voting-age population to get elected and re-elected — a miniscule segment of America comprising the hard-core Republican base.

    http://www.creators.com/opinion/david-sirota.html