Nuts on Ahmednuttyjihad
The burning question, before, during, and after was about how appropriate it was for Columbia University allowing Ahmednuttyjihad a prestigious platform on which to speak. Was it?
President Ahmednuttyjihad of Iran is petty tyrant who is more coffee boy than president. I am sure he wields power, but only as much power as suits the whims of the Iranian Mullacracy.
On the con side of the debate people are saying just that why should we let a petty tyrant use one of our open forums to say things the likes of which his government would not allow said in an equivalent platform in Iran? So there is the lack of reciprocation.
The prestige it gives the guy back in Iran is another drawback. The appearance (even though it was less than a positive experience for Ahmednuttyjihad) might demoralize the Iranian opposition.
I think too the idea of fueling the illiberal forces in our nation too does a diservice. As we have seen there has been plenty of gushing commentary and one blog had a survey where they asked the readership who they would rather have as president Ahmednuttyjihad or W. W won, but not by all that much.
No one exposes a nutter better than the nutter himself and Ahmednuttyjihad did just that. While I am disappointed by the crowd in not giving him more guff than they did there were a few points where Ahmednuttyjihad had pretty much the whole audience against him.
Lee Bollinger also did a good job in introducing Ahmednuttyjihad.
On The Whole
I have no problems with letting the likes of Ahmednuttyjihad speak at our institutions.