Comments on: This shit is OVER

By: Raya

Raya — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 01:59:17 +0000

“Bush and Putin, while not the best leaders, are probably deserving of more respect.”

????

I mean….

????

By: pwnererer

pwnererer — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:44:42 +0000

While it was sometimes thrilling and sometimes umcomfortable so to see such brazen pwnage, you reminded me of something I was annoyed about…it ran kind of long and there were was only time for two or three questions from the audience. Oh well, it’s over.

By: Silly PrezBo

Silly PrezBo — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:29:23 +0000

Thanks Prez! All this hoopla just so you could flame the guy. Next time just come on stage yelling, “p0wned! p0wned! p0wned!”

By: the Man ('07)

the Man ('07) — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:10:29 +0000

CU Terror site info:

Registrant:
Bart Hook
1 E. Galloway Ct

Newark, DE 19711
United States of America

Registrar: DomainPeople, Inc.

Domain Name: columbiasupportsterror.com
Created on ………….Sun Sep 23 17:58:59 2007
Expires on ………….Tue Sep 23 17:58:59 2008
Record last updated on .Sun Sep 23 18:49:22 2007
Status ……………..LOCK,

Administrative Contact:
Bart Hook
Bart Hook
1 E. Galloway Ct

Newark, DE
19711, US
(302)2921780
()
bart@320studios.com

Technical Contact:
SiteProduct Web Services
Administrator DNS
1 N State Street

Chicago, IL
60602, US
(1312)2362132
(131)22361958
administrator@siteprotect.com

Domain servers in listed order:
ns1.dreamhost.com 66.33.206.206
ns2.dreamhost.com 66.201.54.66
ns3.dreamhost.com 66.33.216.216

By: no sir

no sir — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 05:09:58 +0000

Downright personal? He didn’t insult the guy’s haircut, he called him a petty dictator, and justified his statement. Unless you think that it was a false, baseless accusation, you need to stop whining about hurt feelings and personal insults.

You’re right. I doubt Bollinger would introduce Bush or Putin in such a manner. Bush and Putin, while not the best leaders, are probably deserving of more respect. But more importantly is the question of *should* Bollinger introduce Bush or Putin or some Saudi prince by direct and pointed questioning. If you think, as I suspect you do, he should not be afraid of making truthful statements, then I don’t see your problem with the precedent he may be setting. I never said I thought it would become precedent; I just said I thought it was a good one.

By: correction

correction — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 04:40:57 +0000

would *not* introduce, correction

By: hmm

hmm — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 04:38:32 +0000

So there’s only one of two choices on either extreme, then, right? A “boring, lie-laden stump speech” or getting downright personal? Nice try.

And I would bet my ass that Bollinger would introduce Bush or Saudia Arabia’s monarchs or Putin or any other abhorrent leader with personal insults.

By: last one

last one — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 04:25:10 +0000

So if the precedent is “roast abhorrent world leaders who violate the human rights of their citizens rather than let a unique opportunity for debate become a boring, lie-laden stump speech” then yea, I’m fine with that precedent. I hope to God that becomes precedent.

I’m not sure where all the “he’s an elected leader” comments stem from. First of all, we criticize our own leaders pretty harshly. Americans generally believe that the office should not protect someone from bad behavior, certainly not from criticism. If a president in the U.S. commits perjury or obstructs an investigation, then he should be vilified and impeached, regardless of his title. The fact that his guy is elected should not stop us from calling a spade a spade, and a petty dictator a petty dictator. If he doesn’t like it, then he shouldn’t have jailed journalists and executed juveniles.

Lastly, there’s all this fear of war-mongering. So, like, what’s the alternative. Say nothing, and quietly let these atrocities continue in Iran? We shouldn’t disallow or discourage speech because it might cause some unintended, unlikely, far removed danger. And personally, if we could conduct a war/reconstruction in the right way and successfully, then I think it would be fine and just to go to war to protect people who cannot protect themselves, to end genocides, and to stop human rights abuses.

By: i think

i think — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 04:04:20 +0000

Bollinger was merely clarifying what the free speech situation was, and I think this was pretty smart consider the hodge podge of misrepresentations about free speech, both for this even and the Gilchrist event last year. Ahmadinejad does not have a “right” to speak per se; he doesn’t have the right to speak at a university and have his words broadcast on TV. Rather, the principle of free speech is demonstrative of the value we associate with speech in general, and the idea that we cannot arrive at the truth unless we are willing to hear all sides and judge with complete information and considering all opinions (the competition in a free marketplace of ideas). Thus we have a right to hear all opinions, and it is proper that we hear all opinions, regardless of how we might disagree. Secondly, Bollinger asserted the academic freedom that universities should have in our society, countering the accusations of “treason” and the university being anti-American. If universities are not allowed to teach what they want and students are not allowed to learn about the complete picture, then our universities will be no different from the ones in Iran where speech and academic freedom are suppressed.

Generally, I think the message was for the students that they should not be angry at the administration for inviting Ahmadinejad to campus, but that they should feel privileged to participate in such a rare opportunity.

By: Okay

Okay — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 04:02:30 +0000

But don’t you think that set a precedent? Speakers we consider abhorrent will have to get the same introduction. And honestly, considering outlets like Fox are beating the war-with-Iran drums, it was a little disconcerting to have Bollinger parrot a lot of their tone. Fine, attack him using reason and history; but amidst all the personal attacks, it would do well to remember that he still represents/leads an entire country and many, many people outside of academia conflate him with the rest of Iran.

By: Yeah

Yeah — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:55:42 +0000

I agreed with the substance of the speech, the content. But the self-congratulatory crap? The tone of “you’re only here because we deign to have you in our royal presence”? Coulda done without it. I think it undermined all the great content.

By: the problem

the problem — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:51:21 +0000

is that if Bollinger had just done a ho-hum, here is what you did, how do you respond introduction, then the forum would really have become solely Ahmadinejad’s platform for saying what he wanted. I think Bollinger represented what many people in the university and in the country think, not to mention what many Iranians feel but are unable to express for fear of persecution. If you deny the Holocaust occurred, then you truly are either uneducated, or you are “brazenly provocative”. That’s not a false dichotomy. Those are essentially the only two options. As he said, the entire civilized world is essentially feeling the same revulsion for the human rights abuses in Iran. To gloss over them without showing the outrage of millions of people would have been a tremendous waste of one of the only situations in which this leader can frankly be told just what people think of him.

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:45:11 +0000

well said, well. but the issue at stake here is not bollinger’s list of truths. it’s his holier than thou tone. especially when he fired the inimitable:

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.

he was legitimazing a whole discourse of us vs them tactics. not only was he slyly stripping his guest of the right to speak but he was also privileging himself and the members of the audience as superior human beings.

i’m interested to hear what people have to say about this specific quote.

By: Agreed

Agreed — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:42:18 +0000

but he could have left the speech the way it was, minus the ad hominem attacks. That’s what was vaguely unsettling about it. The truth of what he was saying would have stood strong all by itself, or stood even stronger, minus the “uneducated” or “ridiculous” stuff. Getting personal, outside of the academic inquiry and scathing line of question, just wasn’t necessary.

By: omg

omg — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:41:33 +0000

that video under “sick” is AWESOME!!!!ONE@!111