Daily Three

I’m starting to feel sorry for Lee Bollinger. The price of freedom is apparently criticism no matter what you do: Invite Ahmadinejad or not. Confront him or not. Either way, you’re going to royally tick off somebody. (Immoderate Verbiage Alert: What follows is not polite.) Observing the latest Bollinger/Ahmadinejad hooplah and all the hooplah that preceded it, my reaction now boils down to this: Get over it, people. When you run a university, you can make the decisions. If you don’t, crawl back in your hole and mind your own damn business. And no, I don’t readily accept this PR ploy as legitimate. Instead, I imagine it went something like this: "Hey, Mr. Iranian Academic, here's a gun to your head. Can you think of any questions for Lee Bollinger?"

Speaking of Ahmadinejad, the following thought first struck me when I skimmed the translated transcript of his remarks at Columbia U, and then again this morning when I skimmed his remarks to the UN: In words if not actions, he comes across as a deeply religious man. Ironic, isn’t it, that if and when a US President speaks this way, he’s labeled a theocrat, accused of pressing for theocratic rule at the expense of secular society and the guaranteed freedom of religion. But when Ahmadinejad talks this way, the language is not only ignored, but anyone who dares criticize him (on any point) is accused of being confrontational and out of line. Is this dichotomous treatment justified on the assumption that the President of the US should know better, while Ahmadinejad is simply a buffoon? Or, is it justified on the fact that our laws discourage this type of talk, Iran's do not, so hey, it's OK? Or, is it justified on the fact that the critics are using a blatant and baseless double-standard?

Finally, this morning, an interesting tale of confrontation between Bush and NPR.