Ahmadinejad at Columbia-in Support of Lee Bollinger

Short Version

Yesterday, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia University. A previous speech that was to take place last year was canceled for "security and logistical reasons."

The President of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, and the rest of Columbia University came under scorching criticism for allowing the controversial leader to speak.

"I didn't expect Lee Bollinger to say Ahmadinejad is a moderate or he's been misunderstood," City Council Speaker Christine Quinn said. "The forum he provided is the issue. He and his university gave this hate monger an opportunity to speak on one of the most prestigious stages in all the world." (From AP via Yahoo).

I, for one, applaud the decision. I believe that bad ideas are like vampires; they don't survive exposure to light. I only saw clips of his speech here, but I thought it was interesting. When confronted with his "denial" of the holocaust, he said that he didn't deny it happened, only that he disagreed with what had happened to the middle east since, and that the holocaust did not justify the displacement of the Palestinians (i.e., the creation of the state of Israel).

Fair Point. You might not agree with it, but it's a fair point.

My favorite part though, was when he was asked about homosexuals in his country. Ahmadinejad denied that ANY homosexuals existed in Iran. The crowd erupted in laughter, as I would. In that one instant, he was transformed from some diabolical world leader into just a bigot in denial. And THAT is the power of the free-exchange of ideas.

I don't think Lee Bollinger's introduction (wherein he called some of Ahmadinejad's ideas "ridiculous" and the man himself a "petty and cruel dictator") was really appropriate given that he was the moderator, as opposed to an opponent in a debate. However, given the amount of negative publicity about his decision to even allow Ahmadinejad to speak, I understand why he chose to lead with how he disagreed with the man, but that he still allowed him to speak.

So I agree with Ahmadinejad's rebuke that it wasn't really appropriate to introduce a speaker in a way to immediately put him on the defensive and that the students should make up their own mind. He called this "Iranian tradition." I think a few political prisoners and former newspaper owners who would disagree that it is Iranian tradition to allow free speech.

Ahmadinejad also took spontaneous questions from the audience. Something I wish OUR president (who was so quick to criticize the University's decision to allow the Iranian President to speak) would do. Cuz I think our President has some pretty stupid ideas that I wish would see the light of day in an open forum.

So again, in allowing him this forum, a lot of this man's ideas, that would otherwise stay hidden behind unchallenged statements in other forums, come to light. I just found the whole thing on Youtube, so I'm going to watch it all for context I think:

Long Version

Ahmadinejad Speech Part 1: Wow, that's a lot of God talk. I guess this shows the big difference between our two cultures. I think he's trying to be relevant to Christianity? Some of this "science and religion are able to co-exist" talk sound sort of similar to christian fundamentalist yet apologetic creationists.

Ahmadinejad Speech Part2: Oh man, more God stuff? This is why I don't go to church, mosque, or temple. No wonder the highlights from this were so short. Science is illuminating? Didn't he say this already? Oh God, this is painful.

Ahmadinejad Speech Part3: Ok, I agree that Bush's wiretapping domestic citizens does create fear, but this is coming from the guy who runs a country that shuts down opposition newspapers and arrests people for their political views. Now he's talking about the misuse of science and alluding to nuclear capabilities. I think I know where this is going....

Ahmadinejad Speech Part4: Here it is. The nuclear powers have strayed from science and the teaching of the profits by not allowing countries to develop nuclear capability. Palestinian refugees were created by the creation of Israel. ooh, here we go.... He did say that the holocaust was a "historical event" so I don't know how people can say that he "denies" its existence. He says he wants to research it from "different angles." Not sure what that means. Now he says he wants to study its "root causes," that's fair. And now why should the Palestinians pay the price for the holocaust when they didn't have anything to do with it? I think that is a fair point.

Iran is a member of the IAEA and now he's citing their bi-laws and saying their reports say that Iran is pursuing peaceful nuclear energy. I don't think the IAEA agrees with that.

Ahmadinejad Speech Part 5: Now he is making it an issue of independence and self-determination. Now questions: "Do you seek the destruction of Israel?" Answer: "We love all nations" and how jews live in Iran and are represented in the government. But he says Palestinians have the right to self-determination. But the interviewer wants a yes or no answer. Ahmadinejad bristles and says that now the moderator wants to hear the answer he wants to hear, and retorts with his own "Is the Palestinian issue not an international issue of prominence? Yes or no?"

Now, in response to whether Iran supports terrorists, he says that Iran is actually a victim of terrorism.

Ahmadinejad Speech Part 6: Now, "why do you want to research the holocaust more?" He answers, "why do you want to stop?" "I'm not saying it didn't happen"

Now a question about Iranian women and their rights. "Women in Iran enjoy the highest degree of freedom." Wow. "There are hundreds of women scientists in the biotechnology field." Wow, hundreds.

"We don't have homosexuals in our country" BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

"It's not a crime to be a women" Uh oh, this is getting bad.

Ahmadinejad Speech Part 7: Question about the nuclear program. What are you seeking? Only to provide fuel to power plants. He again accuses the world powers of wanting to monopolize science. Not much more.

Moderator makes one last quip about how Ahmadinejad didn't have time to answer some questions, and didn't answer some of the questions posed to him. Wow, that never happens here. I think that was a rather lame an ungracious last word to get in.

Bong Hits 4 Jesus: Part "Dude!"

In a 5-4 decision handed down yesterday, the Supreme Court reversed a Ninth Circuit decision and held that the school board did not offend the First Amendment when it disciplined a student who held up a sign that read "BONG HiTS 4 Jesus" at a "school outing" when the class was outside watching the Olympic torch go by.

Now as a practical matter, it is a pretty stupid thing to do and I don't think disciplining the student for being a jackass is a bad idea. But if you read why the board disciplined him, and more importantly, why the SCOTUS upholds the school board's decision is more than a little disturbing.

While the court admitted the message was "cryptic," it went on to conclude that the sign "advocated the use of illegal drugs," and that thus the school could thus restrict the student's speech consistent with the First Amendment.

But pay close attention to how the Court concludes that the sign promotes and advocates illegal drug use. Here is the key paragraph.

At least two interpretations of the words on the banner demonstrate that the sign advocated the use of illegal drugs. First, the phrase could be interpreted as an imperative: “[Take] bong hits . . .”—a message equivalent, as Morse explained in her declaration, to “smoke marijuana” or “use an illegal drug.” Alternatively, the phrase could be viewed as celebrating drug use—“bong hits [are a good thing],” or “[we take] bong hits”—and we discern no meaningful distinction between celebrating illegal drug use in the midst of fellow students and outright advocacy or promotion.

So the phrase could be interpreted as an "imperative" when the court inserts the correct verb and appropriate conjugation in front of the what the sign actually says "[Take] bong hits..." or it could be "celebrating" drug use when the Court inserts pretty much ALL of the necessary language for that interpretation "bong hits [are a good thing]."

I'm sorry, but that's fucking crazy. Here, I can play that too. How about "bong hits [are totally bogus]." See? It's actually promoting a drug-free America, Judge Roberts! Or maybe the sign read "[All students have to pray ] 4 Jesus!" Now we have an establishment clause violation! This is fun. Feel free to come up with your own meaning!

If there's anything that can be called "judicial activism," it includes adding operative language to the speech in question so that it can be placed outside of the full scope of protection of the First Amendment.

Previous post on the oral argument, Bong Stinks for Jesus: collateral tokage.

Better written article at the Washingtonpost.com, from whence I also stole the picture.

Full SCOTUS opinion

"Bong Stinks for Jesus" and a lot of "unfurling"

Oral argument was heard today in Morse v. Frederick (aka, that case in Alaska where the kid unfurled a 15' sign that read "Bong Hits for Jesus" where the Olympic torch was being carried through town, and was suspended).

The oral argument transcript (here) is a good read, but it gets a bit boring towards the end. There is something surreal about having the SCOTUS discussing high school truancy and bong hits. Here are some fun highlights from "Fast Times at SCOTUS High:"

JUSTICE GINSBURG: So if the sign had been "Bong Stinks for Jesus," that would be, and Morse had the same reaction, that this was demeaning to the Olympics and it was unruly conduct, that there would be a protected right under Tinker because the message was not promoting drugs?

...

JUSTICE BREYER: Suppose that this particular person had whispered to his next door neighbor, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus, heh heh heh," you know. Supposed that's what had happened?