Reply #71: the university president acted like the boor he is... [View All]

I read the following on this on HuffPo this morning...a post by Scarabus:

"Two separate issues: First, was it appropriate to invite Ahmadinejad to speak? Of course! Even if one considers him an enemy, there is clear benefit in better understanding the enemy. And exchanging ideas is clearly preferable to exchanging bullets and bombs--Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Condi and similar economic imperialists notwithstanding.

But second, was it appropriate for Bollinger to take his cheap shot in the introduction? No way!! To have heard Ahmadinejad out and then contested or commented on his assertions would have been both civil and diplomatic. However, to invite a guest to one's campus and then insult him while introducing him? That was uncivil, unscholarly, and undiplomatic. That was bush league (pun intended!).

Yes, in my opinion Ahmadinejad is (or at least talks like) a combination pander and fanatic (sorta like Dubya, in fact, just to different fundamentalist fanatical bases). But shouting playground insults does nothing to diminish his influence. To the contrary, his declining to return the insults empowers him.

Bollinger was right to invite him. But Bollinger was a combination of CYA and brain-dead to proffer his juvenile intro. Plus one for Islamic extremism. Minus one for professionalism, peace, civility, and international concord. Bollinger was played like the Middle Eastern equivalent of a mandolin."

This just seemed so relevant to me.