The big news in the USA at the beginning of this week is the fall-out from the speech given at Columbia University by the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mr. A is in New York to speak at the UN and Mr. Lee Bollinger, the President of Columbia University took the opportunity of his presence to invite him to address students and faculty and in effect, provide him with a publicity platform.
Bollinger is a Leftist and among his many Leftist actions is the banning of military recruiters from his campus. I am not sure if this is because of the Military’s unwillingness to approve sodomy amongst the men or because Bollinger disapproves of military defense. Given that he is a Leftist, he is probably guilty on both counts. My opinion is that Bollinger, who inhabits a world of Leftist academics where the words ‘Bush’ and ‘Christian’ equate with ‘Hitler’ and ‘Nazi’, did not anticipate the furor his invitation generated. Mr. A, who has denied the holocaust and called for the elimination of Israel, is also a sworn enemy of the US and its President. He is busy funneling arms from Iran to Shia insurgents in Iraq and brazenly developing a nuclear weapon to destroy Israel. None of this disturbed Mr. Bollinger and his colleagues in the East Coast’s academic world, for all was eclipsed by Mr. A’s hatred of Bush. At the moment, anyone who denounces Bush is a friend of Leftists. Many East Coast Jews, as well as Republicans, conservatives and nationalists were outraged by Bollinger’s invitation and there have been threats to cut off gifts to Columbia and other acts of protest that would have financial repercussions.
Consequently, when Mr. A got up on the Columbia rostrum, Bollinger began his welcome address with some denunciations of the Iranian President and some hard questions – not at all the kind of thing that the Iranian and everyone else were anticipating. I think Bollinger changed his script to salvage his position in the light of so much protesting, but it is not provable. Bollinger is now getting the worst of all worlds, condemnation from the Right for the invitation, and hostility from comrades who felt he was rude to a guest and Leftist soul-mate.
The Columbia audience only got angry with Mr. A when he got on to the topic of homosexuality. Like all unhinged fanatics, Mr. A knows that he can say anything he likes, including the boldest and most transparent of lies, because he has to answer to no-one. He asserted that there were no homosexuals in Iran, thus obviating the need to answer question about the persecution of Iranian homosexuals. This was the one topic that upset his audience and Leftists and the Media in general. Readers of this website will know why the topic of sodomy was the litmus test for them. Anti-Americanism, anti-Israel threats, the stoning to death of women who have been raped, torture of Iranian dissidents and a covert war against allied troops in Iraq – none of this disturbs Leftists. Denying that Iran has homosexuals however, got their backs up (no pun intended!). I suppose that amongst other aspects of this reply that got to them was his implicit claim that the 10% ‘law of nature’ is nonsense.
Bollinger and Columbia’s Dean of International and Public Affairs John Coatsworth, are claiming that the invitation was an exercise in free speech and dialogue to avert war. On this website we are robust defenders of free speech, and if Bollinger and Coatsworth, in their private capacities, had booked a New York venue and invited Mr. A. we would defend their right to do so. We would also have defended the right of people to protest his visit, as long as they did not try to prevent such a meeting taking place. What is wrong with Universities promoting public political meetings is that it is a device for promoting a particular political agenda. Leftists pretend that it is about education when we all know it is about propagandizing. We think it would be better if academic institutions, at least those funded with public money, kept right away from politics. Political free speech can only be truly free when it takes place in the market place and in people’s free time.
Whilst on the subject of sodomy, I must mention that the Associated Press was greatly disappointed last week with the announcement by MERCK that it had halted its ‘STEP’ experiment. It seems that in December of 2004, MERCK began ‘immunizing’ some 3000 volunteers around the world with an HIV vaccine. All were HIV free when the program began. The volunteers were homosexual men and what AP calls female ‘sex workers’. This is the PC word for prostitutes. The experiment was halted when MERCK discovered that some 27% of those who had had the vaccine had become HIV positive and 24% of those given a placebo were also now HIV positive. This is a high figure, as MERCK admitted. My guess is that many of the men assumed that they could now ‘enjoy’ sodomy without protection and took the risky route that so many admit provides them with an extra thrill. MERCK said it would go back to the drawing board and no doubt AIDS research will remain the biggest recipient of public money. AIDS is a disease that could be eliminated in about two generations simply by a change of behavior, from promiscuity and perversion to old-fashioned moral codes.
There are hundreds of terrible illnesses and conditions that affect children and adults and generate virtually no public money for investigative research. They are ignored too by fundraising rich Hollywood stars, unemployed politicians like the man married to the smartest woman in US politics and rich Silicon Valley men who crave the company of celebrities. Again, readers of this website will know why.
Lastly, back to the weather! One day recently, here in central California we had a cold and wet day that was not typical of September weather, though both August and September have been cool this year. The temperature peaked at about 63 F. On the same date in 1949 it reached 106F. Shortly after, AP gave much publicity to a gang of experts who claimed that much of Florida, coastal Texas and the Carolinas would be drowned in the next 50 to 100 years. In the same article it was asserted that in the last 100 years the sea had risen by 39 inches. For most of my life, I lived very close to the English Channel and for some years about 3 feet above the high tide mark. Back in the late 1980’s or early 1990’s there were a few days when tides were predicted to rise to the highest levels known due to the moon and its effects. Sandbags were placed in all the vulnerable slipways and sure enough the surge happened. Fortunately, pressure was very high and a calm night meant that no water broke through the little bags of sand. I can confidently assert that over a period of 50 years the sea in the channel has not risen, for there are buildings and places that have existed at the water’s edge for several hundred years without being affected by the sea and without protection. In some cases I know places where, when I was a boy, the sea penetrated regularly in winter and spring, and does not do so now. As we say on this website, never believe your own lying eyes when experts and politicians make pronouncements.