Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s September 24 speech at Columbia University seems like ancient history. The news media has long since turned its attention to other obsessions, such as what a helluva nice guy Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee is, or just how low our expectations for the upcoming Annapolis conference should be. But professors at Columbia apparently have remarkably long attention spans, and the handling of Ahmadinejad’s speech remains deeply contentious among faculty members.
The fault lines of this dispute are numbingly predictable. Last week, over 100 faculty members signed a petition, protesting Bollinger’s leadership in light of the Ahmadinejad circus:
The president’s address on the occasion of President Ahmadinejad’s visit has sullied the reputation of the University with its strident tone, and has abetted a climate in which incendiary speech prevails over open debate. The president’s introductory remarks were not only uncivil and bad pedagogy, they allied the University with the Bush administration’s war in Iraq, a position anathema to many in the University community.
Not to be outdone, as of Monday, 70 faculty members had signed a counter-protest petition defending Bollinger, disputing the notion that the president’s combative introduction of Ahmadinejad allied Columbia with (heaven forbid) the Bush administration:
As the publicly available transcript confirms, these remarks addressed sequentially: 1) Holocaust denial; 2) Ahmadinejad’s stated intent to destroy Israel; 3) Iran’s funding of terrorism; 4) Iran’s proxy war against US troops in Iraq; and 5) Iran’s nuclear program. Only the fourth item refers to the war in Iraq, and only in the context of Iran’s role in financing and arming terrorist attacks against our troops.
Last week, my contentions colleague Noah Pollak applauded the pro-Bollinger professors for standing up to the “tenured thugs,” who have undertaken “the setting of ideological boundaries by purging and intimidating those who would ignore them.”
Yet, for everything that one finds troubling about the anti-Bollinger petition—most especially, the presumption that we should be hospitable to Holocaust-denying dictators—it is hard to sympathize with Bollinger’s defenders. Indeed, the debate among Bollinger’s supporters and detractors obscures the fact that, no matter ones views of Bollinger’s firm introduction of Ahmadinejad, the entire affair should never have occurred in the first place. By inviting Ahmadinejad, Bollinger granted an academic forum to a most academically dishonest leader, dangerously boosting Ahmadinejad’s credibility where the United States can least afford it: among Iranians.
Again, this is all old news and you’ve probably heard it before. But here’s a new twist: I hereby declare myself the first contentions writer openly to obey a Rashid Khalidi-signed petition: after all, the anti-Bollinger petition decries the “intervention” of outsiders in faculty matters. Thus, as it is impossible to choose between the president that invited Ahmadinejad and professors who would have been more accommodating, I abstain from taking sides. Bollinger and his miffed opponents deserve one another completely.
Hmmm.
1. I rather like JtP. He reminds me of a friend of mine, also a plumber, in disposition and even in appearance.
2. Perhaps this is just JtP’ way of tweaking MSM noses. A little get back maybe?
3. If it works out for JtP, or JtR now, good for him. If he gets a show on Fox News, I’ll tune and see what’s what.
It would be better to send Tito the Builder. Joe is not articulate, and frequently had trouble defending his views when questioned. Tito, on the other hand, was not only articulate but pithy and sometimes eloquent. He was able to get to the heart of the issue in a few sentences, and always defended himself ably.
Bring back Tito!
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=Tito+the+builder&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#
Oh yes, Joe got to the heart of the worrisome economic disposition that has just promised several hundred billion dollars in TAX CUTS. And the election is over.
Yeah, that Joe is pretty sharp… I won’t call him a plumber because I think he should be called “Joe the Craven Opportunist”
The development of the media in this country parallels that of other disciplines such as medicine, law, engineering, and so on. From humble, uncomplicated beginnings it has become a specialized, technology-based, esoteric pursuit farther and farther removed from the experience of the majority of society. Originally a craft, like laying bricks or blowing glass, schools anxious to expand their curriculum established journalism programs that have moved the trade to the social “sciences”. The idea that determining the background and details of an event and then describing this to an audience is impossible for a literate person of normal intelligence is a great example of the elitist attitudes that spread from the pseudo-intellectual epicenter of the country somewhere between Boston and New York.
During Israel’s 2006 war against Hezbollah I met one of CNN’s parachute TV journalists on the border. I listened to his questions to an IDF colonel while Michael Oren translated. The guy didn’t know any more about Israel than Joe the Plumber does. His job was to look good on TV. I don’t want to name him and embarass him, but all of you have heard of this person, and he is well-regarded as a professional.
What about the fact that Joe is a proven liar? Should that not impact our trust of his reporting?
Well, the NYTIMES are proven liars.
Joe the Plumber lied about what, exactly?
He lied about being a plumber. He is unlicensed. And about how much money he made (the crux of his argument with Obama’s tax plan. He actually gets a tax cut under Obama’s plan.)
JtP lies much less often than the NYTimes or Boston Globe. Advantage JtP.
Come on, Franglo. He fixes (or did fix) plumbing. That makes him a plumber. His lack of a license does not mean he did not perform the job of a plumber. If he said he was a licensed plumber, that would be a lie. Sheesh.
Obama lied relentlessly during the campaign (Ayers is just a guy on my block, etc….). Should that not impact our trust of his statements?
I’m with Abe on this one….and Joe the ex-Plumber turn war correspondent.
franglo, are you still buying that Obama’s TAX CREDITS are TAX CUTS?
And who here is the fool?
” pseudo-intellectual epicenter of the country somewhere between Boston and New York”
lol yeah, where all the jews live.
this confirms my theory that neo cons are basically the biggest uncle toms ever. bashing “the media” and “hollywood” the way the racist right used to
they were codewords for jews. you are bashing yourselves. morons
Hmmm.
@ franglo
1. “He lied about being a plumber.”
Wrong. He is/was a plumber.
2. “He is unlicensed.”
He is/was an -apprentice- plumber. That means he is/was a plumber.
3. “And about how much money he made (the crux of his argument with Obama’s tax plan. He actually gets a tax cut under Obama’s plan.)”
And strike 3, you’re an idiot.
JtP actually posited a hypothetical future situation where, if he bought his employer’s company and made much more money, -then- his tax situation would be much worse.
It is painfully obvious that you’ve either never watched the actual exchange, have no reliable memory of it or you’re working off the Democratic flack talking points.
Hmmm.
@ lester
“they were codewords for jews. you are bashing yourselves. morons”
Frankly the only thing moronic around here, other than franglo, is you.
Neocon does not equal Jew. Or rather the simple definition of a Neocon is a former liberal or socialist that has adopted conservative principles, mostly in terms of national defense, while otherwise adopting a moderate position on other ideals.
So someone, formerly a liberal, who now is very pro-national defense and is still pro-Choice could reasonably be called a Neocon.
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/01/significance-of-joe-the-plumber-middle-east-assignment.html
for the record, uncle tom was a noble hero (for anyone who wishes to read the book rather than use the name in the manner of the malcolm x)
1. I hope the guy stays safe. It’s a war zone, including in Southern Israel where there continue to be rocket attacks.
2. This is beyond stupid. This is not an “average Joe” providing his perspective. With regard to foreign policy, he’s below average.
Let’s ask Joe himself (from that infamous interview with Shep Stone on Fox News):
“You don’t want my opinion on foreign policy. I probably know just about enough to be dangerous.”
Why didn’t PJTV listen to the man himself? Let’s take him at his word that he’s dangerous in this arena, correct PJTV’s mistake, and not listen to him.
Oops, Shep Smith.