Looking at the hysteria caused by the visit of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to New York and Columbia University, I would like to dare George Bush to reciprocate the visit. And I would like to dare the Iranians to let him. It doesn't matter what Ahmadinejad actually says. What matters is that he is entering the territory of a president who has openly vowed to put him out of business, and has dared to speak, indeed, has dared to give what appears to be his honest opinions. And he has been confronted by protesters and by irate news commentators (such as Scott Pelley). Would Bush allow the same sorts of confrontations? I doubt it. He doesn't even allow himself to confronted by Americans who disagree with him.
One thing the right wing hates in the U.S. is the humanizing of someone they have tried to dehumanize. That's why they have so objected to the Iranian president's visit. But, hey. He's human. I defy you to prove to me otherwise. Now I would like George W. Bush to prove the same thing.
Bush would be saying that Saddam had NO connection to 9-11, the war in Iraq is all about oil, Saddam had not WMD, climate change is beyond dispute, he has more doubts about his faith than Mother Teresa, he is still drinking, he couldn't care less about victims of Katrina, the GWOT is a money-maker for his friends, Petraeus is his "toy soldier" for the politics of prolonging the war, and that Karl Rove was used to divide the American voters so that his buddies could fleece the country like a Banana Republic.
Jim Carey could pull it off.
Subplots would be about other politicians such as Larry Craig, "I am not (openly) gay!" Lynne Cheney, "We DO torture." Alberto Gonzalez, "I couldn't care less about those kids." Condi Rice, "What the hell, are you nuts? - there's no mushroom cloud or a smoking gun. What have you been smoking?"
Ahmadinejad should admit that there WAS a Holocaust.
That's a film I'd like to see. What I actually hear from these people is just one big lie after another lie.
Perhaps it was bold of you to allow an invitation to President Ahmadinejad to speak. Perhaps you simply allowed President Ahmadinejad to visit so you could show publicly your ignorance and cowardliness. Mr. Bollinger you should be ashamed of yourself for embarrassing Columbia University. Your remarks were uncalled for, "modern American" governmental political correctness. It seems that you are a corporate hack or government lackey. Perhaps you are both. Oh, that's right. You were just playing to your base, Columbia's donors and the owners of Columbia's endowment. So coward is the correct word. Another spineless non-entity in an important position.
I would suggest you consider resigning and accepting a sunset job with the Bush administration. Or possibly "60 Minutes". You and Mr. Pelley should have no problem seeing eye-to-eye. Whatever you decide, the important thing is that you now go away.
--
I also saw a calm gentleman shrug off that immature behavior and speak plainly and intelligently about serious matters of truth and justice.
Now I see a lot of people who either didn't listen or don't care for the truth anyway, still giving out lies.
Oh, he made a funny, saying that Iran didn't have homosexuals. (He might have said the same about our army once!) aand those idiots and worse who want his country bombed (and could find nothing else to latch onto) have used it as proof of his evil.
Now I ask those of you with brains to put them in gear and think: which of these seems more sane, more rational, more moral, more intelligent and more civilized?
And Bush woulden't be able to answer my questions, such as "What did you do in the military?" "How did you like using hard drugs?" "Are you really on the wagon?" "Why did you lie about WMDs in Iraq? Why did you lie about who forced the inspectors out? What do you think about Plamegate?" "Why were you so eager to make war? And why in Hell are you repeating that same despicable pattern now?"
I could ask impolite questions but why bother; those about facts are too tough for Bush.
How do we manage to conceal these "truths" from ourselves? How do we accomplish the extraordinary feat whereby, we play...
"the uncanny game of hide-and-seek in the obscurity of the soul, in which it, the single human soul, evades itself, avoids itself, hides from itself."
Peck's book, "The Road Less Traveled," was the first bestseller by a psychiatrist. "People of the Lie" advanced the hypothesis that narcissism allows soldiers to collectively follow orders or commit atrocities on their own initiative by dehumanizing the "enemy."
Evil comes in all packages - even behind the waiving flag and the Bible.
The My Lai incident in Vietnam was a frequent occurrence, as are the atrocities by Blackwater and at Abu Graib. Unfortunately, the collective hysteria of the war drums, the narcissism of those who feel God ordained the killing of evil people, and the failure to have empathy militate in favor of mass extermination of other human beings.
There was an attack on the complicity of religious leaders who underwrite these killings during wars in Dr. Peck's book. Billy Graham never saw a war that he didn't support, says Newsweek recently.
--- Pogo
The term "shadow" was first used by the renowned psychologist Carl Jung to describe the repressed or denied parts of the Self:
"The shadow is the negative side of the personality, the sum of all those unpleasant qualities we like to hide, together with the insufficiently developed functions and the contents of the personal unconscious...."
It is tempting to equate the obscurity and "darkness" of the shadow realms with evil itself. However, Jung was quite clear that this would be an error. Human evil, as he defined it, is actually a result of a "failure to meet the shadow." Said another way, what most characterizes people who have "stepped over the line" is not a lack of conscience,but rather an absolute refusal to tolerate what their inner awareness reveals.
In Lifting the Veil: the Feminine Face of Science, Linda Shepherd writes:
"The power of the collective mind reinforces our most cherished ideas and opinions…It requires a tremendous effort of consciousness to question dogmas of orthodoxy and the behavior of authorities who have a strong sense of entitlement. Projecting our shadow onto others can justify the most extreme atrocities.
"In order to thwart the Devil…the Church tortured herbalists, midwives, and wise women suspected of witchcraft until they confessed their crimes and denounced their 'accomplices.' Over 100,000 people were put to death in Europe [under these circumstances]; 83 percent of them were women."
Elements of the shadow that we do not accept tend to function behind our back, leaking out when we least expect it. And, as, Shepard also notes:
"If we have not sufficiently integrated a part of our personal shadow, the collective shadow [is able to sneak] in through this backdoor."
In what way doesnt he answer questions? He has participated in numerous debates, interviews, etc, many of them hostile. Furthermore why in the hell would any US president lower himself to a Q&A at the university of a pathetic despotic and barbaric country like Iran?
Ms Smiley, I would reccomend you lay off the kool aid jut a bit, it seems to be severely impairing your thinking.
I don't understand the protesters at all . . . I guess they just have to keep hiding behind hate rhetoric and bigotry . . . America's greatest enemy is the bush administration and all its supporters and Israel . . . Iran isn't a threat . . .
They have culture because they are FORCED to have culture, they have no choice in the matter. For you to believe that it is just a country full of laughter and roses is so naive I don't even know where to start.
Why don't you ask Iranian women, homosexuals, etc about Iranian culture and dignity. I guarantee they have different views.
Liberals are laughable!
Tens of thousands of Iranians may be killed and maimed by the Bush/Cheney policy of pre-emptive war. To shut down discussion, to not see Iranians as multidimensional human beings with grievances, beliefs, hopes, and families is to prepare them for a propaganda-driven slaughter.
What country is most likely to be attacked in the next year? Maybe it will be necessary and just, but let's know what we're doing, and not be collective dumb-asses who absract everything to evil-doers.
I don't recall Sharon receiving a harsh reception despite the blood on his hands.
Look, liberals are blinded by HATE for Bush and it absolutely has hindered them from thinking clearly. Putting Mahmoud at a higher level than Bush is just plain rediculous.
One could argue that his speech today at the UN will not be to a freindly crowd.
Unless of course the huffsters are over stating how much the rest of the world hates Bush.
The Bush propagandists have answered the question of a tree falling in the forest....if you shuffle free speech off to an isolated cordoned off area, then it is speech without an ear to hear it. It effectively makes no sound. Blogs can have the same problem...Columbia let free speech make a sound because it was heard by who it was spoken to.