Fall is in the air

Credit where credit is due

"brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated."

"I feel the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for"

With those and a few other words, I was taught a lesson about the importance of allowing a person to hang themselves with their own publicity.

I will be the first to admit that I was opposed to Columbia University hosting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I still think that the motivation behind the invitation was without merit, but I also think that in this case the end justified the means.

In one afternoon, the President of Iran removed any doubt about his agenda and mental stability. The man self destructed, in front of a bunch of Jews in New York City, no less.

And we can thank, in large part, Columbia University President Lee Bollinger. I don't think Bollinger planned to deliver one of the most civilized, stern and well deserved public bitchslappings of a tyrant ever seen in modern times, but he ended up doing that and more. As Ahmadinejad stood there, the President of Columbia University clearly and thoroughly delivered a J'accuse moment for the 21st century.

To preserve the moment, here is the full text of Bollinger's introduction.

President Lee C. Bollinger's Introductory Remarks at SIPA-World Leaders Forum with President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad



Sept. 24, 2007

I would like to begin by thanking Dean John Coatsworth and Professor Richard Bulliet for their work in organizing this event and for their commitment to the role of the School of International and Public Affairs and its role in training future leaders in world affairs. If today proves anything it will be that there is an enormous amount of work ahead for all of us. This is just one of many events on Iran that will run throughout this academic year, all to help us better understand this critical and complex nation in today’s geopolitics.

Before speaking directly to the current President of Iran, I have a few critically important points to emphasize.

First, since 2003, the World Leaders Forum has advanced Columbia’s longstanding tradition of serving as a major forum for robust debate, especially on global issues. It should never be thought that merely to listen to ideas we deplore in any way implies our endorsement of those ideas, or the weakness of our resolve to resist those ideas or our naiveté about the very real dangers inherent in such ideas. It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their voices. To hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible.

Second, to those who believe that this event never should have happened, that it is inappropriate for the University to conduct such an event, I want to say that I understand your perspective and respect it as reasonable. The scope of free speech and academic freedom should itself always be open to further debate. As one of the more famous quotations about free speech goes, it is “an experiment, as all life is an experiment.” I want to say, however, as forcefully as I can, that this is the right thing to do and, indeed, it is required by existing norms of free speech, the American university, and Columbia itself.

Third, to those among us who experience hurt and pain as a result of this day, I say on behalf of all of us we are sorry and wish to do what we can to alleviate it.

Fourth, to be clear on another matter - this event has nothing whatsoever to do with any “rights” of the speaker but only with our rights to listen and speak. We do it for ourselves.

We do it in the great tradition of openness that has defined this nation for many decades now. We need to understand the world we live in, neither neglecting its glories nor shrinking from its threats and dangers. It is consistent with the idea that one should know thine enemies, to have the intellectual and emotional courage to confront the mind of evil and to prepare ourselves to act with the right temperament. In the moment, the arguments for free speech will never seem to match the power of the arguments against, but what we must remember is that this is precisely because free speech asks us to exercise extraordinary self- restraint against the very natural but often counter-productive impulses that lead us to retreat from engagement with ideas we dislike and fear. In this lies the genius of the American idea of free speech.

Lastly, in universities, we have a deep and almost single-minded commitment to pursue the truth. We do not have access to the levers of power. We cannot make war or peace. We can only make minds. And to do this we must have the most full freedom of inquiry.

Let me now turn to Mr. Ahmadinejad.

THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN ON SCHOLARS, JOURNALISTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES
Over the last two weeks, your government has released Dr. Haleh Esfandiari and Parnaz Axima; and just two days ago Kian Tajbakhsh, a graduate of Columbia with a PhD in urban planning. While our community is relieved to learn of his release on bail, Dr. Tajbakhsh remains in Teheran, under house arrest, and he still does not know whether he will be charged with a crime or allowed to leave the country. Let me say this for the record, I call on the President today to ensure that Kian Tajbaksh will be free to travel out of Iran as he wishes. Let me also report today that we are extending an offer to Dr. Tajbaksh to join our faculty as a visiting professor in urban planning here at his Alma Mater, in our Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation. And we hope he will be able to join us next semester.

The arrest and imprisonment of these Iranian Americans for no good reason is not only unjustified, it runs completely counter to the very values that allow today’s speaker to even appear on this campus.

But at least they are alive.

According to Amnesty International, 210 people have been executed in Iran so far this year – 21 of them on the morning of September 5th alone. This annual total includes at least two children – further proof, as Human Rights Watch puts it, that Iran leads the world in executing minors.

There is more.

Iran hanged up to 30 people this past July and August during a widely reported suppression of efforts to establish a more open, democratic society in Iran. Many of these executions were carried out in public view, a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Iran is a party.

These executions and others have coincided with a wider crackdown on student activists and academics accused of trying to foment a so-called “soft revolution”. This has included jailing and forced retirements of scholars. As Dr. Esfandiari said in a broadcast interview since her release, she was held in solitary confinement for 105 days because the government “believes that the United States . . . is planning a Velvet Revolution” in Iran.

In this very room last year we learned something about Velvet Revolutions from Vaclav Havel. And we will likely hear the same from our World Leaders Forum speaker this evening – President Michelle Bachelet Jeria of Chile. Both of their extraordinary stories remind us that there are not enough prisons to prevent an entire society that wants its freedom from achieving it.

We at this university have not been shy to protest and challenge the failures of our own government to live by these values; and we won’t be shy in criticizing yours.

Let’s, then, be clear at the beginning, Mr. President you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator.

And so I ask you:

Why have women, members of the Baha’i faith, homosexuals and so many of our academic colleagues become targets of persecution in your country?

Why in a letter last week to the Secretary General of the UN did Akbar Gangi, Iran’s leading political dissident, and over 300 public intellectuals, writers and Nobel Laureates express such grave concern that your inflamed dispute with the West is distracting the world’s attention from the intolerable conditions your regime has created within Iran? In particular, the use of the Press Law to ban writers for criticizing the ruling system.

Why are you so afraid of Iranian citizens expressing their opinions for change?

In our country, you are interviewed by our press and asked that you to speak here today. And while my colleague at the Law School Michael Dorf spoke to Radio Free Europe [sic, Voice of America] viewers in Iran a short while ago on the tenets of freedom of speech in this country, I propose going further than that. Let me lead a delegation of students and faculty from Columbia to address your university about free speech, with the same freedom we afford you today? Will you do that?

THE DENIAL OF THE HOLOCAUST
In a December 2005 state television broadcast, you described the Holocaust as a “fabricated” “legend.” One year later, you held a two-day conference of Holocaust deniers.

For the illiterate and ignorant, this is dangerous propaganda. When you come to a place like this, this makes you, quite simply, ridiculous. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.

You should know that Columbia is a world center of Jewish studies and now, in partnership with the YIVO Institute, of Holocaust studies. Since the 1930s, we’ve provided an intellectual home for countless Holocaust refugees and survivors and their children and grandchildren. The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history. Because of this, and for many other reasons, your absurd comments about the “debate” over the Holocaust both defy historical truth and make all of us who continue to fear humanity’s capacity for evil shudder at this closure of memory, which is always virtue’s first line of defense.

Will you cease this outrage?

THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL
Twelve days ago, you said that the state of Israel “cannot continue its life.” This echoed a number of inflammatory statements you have delivered in the last two years, including in October 2005 when you said that Israel should be “wiped off the map.”

Columbia has over 800 alumni currently living in Israel. As an institution we have deep ties with our colleagues there. I personally have spoken out in the most forceful terms against proposals to boycott Israeli scholars and universities, saying that such boycotts might as well include Columbia. More than 400 college and university presidents in this country have joined in that statement. My question, then, is: Do you plan on wiping us off the map, too?

FUNDING TERRORISM
According to reports by the Council on Foreign Relations, it’s well documented that Iran is a state sponsor of terror that funds such violent group as the Lebanese Hezbollah, which Iran helped organize in the 1980s, the Palestinian Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

While your predecessor government was instrumental in providing the US with intelligence and base support in its 2001 campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan, your government is now undermining American troops in Iraq by funding, arming, and providing safe transit to insurgent leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr and his forces.

There are a number of reports that also link your government with Syria’s efforts to destabalize the fledgling Lebanese government through violence and political assassination.

My question is this: Why do you support well-documented terrorist organizations that continue to strike at peace and democracy in the Middle East, destroying lives and civil society in the region?

PROXY WAR AGAINST U.S. TROOPS IN IRAQ
In a briefing before the National Press Club earlier this month, General David Petraeus reported that arms supplies from Iran, including 240mm rockets and explosively formed projectiles, are contributing to “a sophistication of attacks that would by no means be possible without Iranian support.”

A number of Columbia graduates and current students are among the brave members of our military who are serving or have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. They, like other Americans with sons, daughters, fathers, husbands and wives serving in combat, rightly see your government as the enemy.

Can you tell them and us why Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq by arming Shi’a militia targeting and killing U.S. troops?

FINALLY, IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM AND INTERNATIONAL SANCTIONS
This week the United Nations Security Council is contemplating expanding sanctions for a third time because of your government’s refusal to suspend its uranium-enrichment program. You continue to defy this world body by claiming a right to develop peaceful nuclear power, but this hardly withstands scrutiny when you continue to issue military threats to neighbors. Last week, French President Sarkozy made clear his lost patience with your stall tactics; and even Russia and China have shown concern.

Why does your country continue to refuse to adhere to international standards for nuclear weapons verification in defiance of agreements that you have made with the UN nuclear agency? And why have you chosen to make the people of your country vulnerable to the effects of international economic sanctions and threaten to engulf the world with nuclear annihilation?

Let me close with this comment. Frankly, and in all candor, Mr. President, I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions. But your avoiding them will in itself be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mindset that characterizes so much of what you say and do. Fortunately, I am told by experts on your country, that this only further undermines your position in Iran with all the many good-hearted, intelligent citizens there. A year ago, I am reliably told, your preposterous and belligerent statements in this country (as in your meeting at the Council on Foreign Relations) so embarrassed sensible Iranian citizens that this led to your party’s defeat in the December mayoral elections. May this do that and more.

I am only a professor, who is also a university president, and today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for. I only wish I could do better.

Jerry McNerney's Vote Not Only Set Back Environmentalism In The 11th District, It Cost Us $24 Million

As I wrote a few months ago, there was a proposal by an environmental group, Environmental Defense, to revise the traditional farm spending bill going through Congress to provide more focus on conservation and supporting farming over development. It was a proposal that would have resulted in great benefits to the 11th District, as it would have provided federal funds for small farms in the area, allowing them to have a viable alternative to selling out to the developers.

Here's what the SF Chronicle wrote about the proposal:

East Bay farmers in the sprawling district of Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton, would get a lot more federal money if the government shifted farm spending from traditional crop subsidies to conservation, according to a report released Monday by the advocacy group Environmental Defense.

And here's what Environmental Defense said about the proposal:

Farmers, ranchers and private forest landowners manage more than half of America's lands, so it's no surprise that agriculture dramatically shapes the environment. The fate of America's rivers, lakes and bays and the survival of many rare species of wildlife largely depends upon farmers, ranchers and private forest owners. Farmers, ranchers and forest landowners also serve as the frontline against sprawl.

We should reward landowners when they offer to help protect the environment, not reject them. Unless we provide landowners with adequate tools and incentives, many of the nation's biggest environmental challenges will not be met. That's why Environmental Defense is working with farmers, ranchers and forest landowners to develop new approaches that balance the needs of agriculture and the environment.

Renewal of federal farm programs and policies in 2007 is a chance to reward farmers, ranchers and forest land owners when they help meet our environmental challenges.

As I reported in my earlier post, Jerry McNerney, our left wing lapdog, didn't support the proposal. McNerney's position was totally at odds with his campaign positions on the environment. Why would McNerney oppose a proposal that would have preserved agriculture land, local farms and the environment and food supply generally? The only answer is that he is in the pocket of the developers and corporate farmers.

So I checked in on the status of the proposal (known as the "Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment) recently and was sad to see two things. First, the amendment was defeated. Second, McNerney was one of those who voted against the amendment.

As a result, we lost $24 million in federal funding that would have been allocated to the 11th District. That $24 million would have gone to preserve our local farms and keep them out of the hands of the developers.

Someone remind me how Pombo was worse than McNerney.

Can there be any question about McNerney's loyalties? His votes speak louder than his rhetoric: He's a tool of the developers and a foe of the environment.

New York City needs a zhid with a rifle

So Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is going to be in New York City next week. Having lived in New York for a bit over seven years, this Zhid knows that NYers are generally a gun averse group (calm down, affe), but isn't there one determined Zhid with, oh, say, a Springfield M1A with National Match barrel and Leupy Mark 4 scope who could do the world a favor? There are plenty of good snipers hides in the urban jungle, I bet the deed could be done without much risk.

The Prophet Fido

Another Mohammed cartoon, another threat to behead an infidel (Lars Vilks this time).

Full story here. Funny line at the end by the target of Islamic terror.

Shills

I am still trying to go through all of the comments that have piled up over the past few weeks (see the post immediately preceding this one for an explanation) but one of the comments that I took a look at accused me of working for Dean Andal's campaign.

The comment came from someone who is a Jerry McNerney shill, so I understand why he would think that anyone who is an advocate must be doing it as a front for a campaign.

I, however, am not like McNerney's shills. I have no agenda to support any particular candidate. I have no connection whatsoever with any candidate or party. This blog existed well before McNerney came to office and it will exist well after he leaves.

I would have supported McNerney, in fact, had he lived up to his promises to protect the environment. My opposition to McNerney was formed as a result of his refusal to take any action to protect the environment in his district. We are under attack by developers and are losing the last bits of open space and agricultural land and Jerry McNerney does nothing to intervene. You can find the details either in the post linked to here or in links embedded within that post.

Jerry McNerney is a fraud.

On top of that, McNerney has sold out to the Pelosi leftists and he is utterly out of step with the majority of people in his district. He was put into office by outsiders with a far left agenda and it's time we took back our representation.

McNerney Fiddles While The Environment Is Under Attack

Jerry McNerney, our lapdog of the left, sure doesn't hesitate to get involved when his puppetmaster Pelosi and his San Francisco liberal supporters tell him to undermine the security of the US or attack our troops.

Yet, somehow, Jerry remains silent about the attack on the environment happening in his very own district.

Why so quiet, Jerry?

Could it be that Jerry cares more about appeasing the left wing zealots who financed his last election than about protecting the people in his own district?

***As an aside, for those of you who have been leaving comments I apologize for how slow I've been in approving them for publication. Because of the massive amounts of spam-bot type of comments that get left on blogger blogs I had to implement the approval system for comments and I've just been really slow in paging through to separate the real comments from the spam ones and approving the real ones for posting. If you really want me to get to a comment quicker, you can always email me at the link in the upper right corner of this page.***

The Pursuit of Accuracy

Earlier this week the NY Times made a laughable error in an editorial about guns. It's no surprise that the NY Times would do everything possible to undercut the right to firearms ownership-we all know that, as Affe said, the NY Times' Bill of Rights reads "First Amendment: Freedom of Speech: Second Amendment: Right to Abortion; Third Amendment: Right to Gay Marriage..." It's hard to overlook that the Times, which is so haughty about the Constitution when it comes to attacking President Bush, simply disregards the Second Amendment.

The error that the Times made this week was to claim that the Constitution provided a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The entire episode, including the Times' failure to provide a correction, is well chronicled here.

So the Times confused the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution, which is shameful enough for an enterprise that uses the Constitution as a mace against the administration.

What I think is even more interesting is that the Constitution does have a provision that includes the lines "life, liberty..." It's part of the 14th Amendment and what it says is this:

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

See, Times' editors, it's property that is protected, not happiness.

Here's the part that makes me laugh. In an editorial arguing for the right of government to deprive a group of people of a property right, the NY Times quoted a constitutional provision that restricts government's ability to do that very thing.

That's gold, Jerry! Gold!

(That's a Seinfeld reference, not a reference to the liberal puppet, environment hating Representative Jerry McNerney).

Update:

Affe insisted that I point out something...yesterday, the NY Times did print a correction to an editorial that ran earlier in the week. The error? In an editorial about a new contract entered into by the creators of the cartoon South Park (and for the life of me, I can't figure out why the editors thought the subject matter was worth an editorial), the Times made the following mistake:

Tuesday’s editorial about “South Park” should have said the television show is in its 11th season, not its 12th.

Good to see that the Times editors have their priorities straight. Errors about the longevity of a cartoon merit correction; errors about the Constitution get swept under the rug.