So What, Exactly, Was Gained?
To be more precise, exactly what did Columbia University and its president Lee Bollinger gain for its embrace of freedom of expression - let loose in the elegantly-inspired surroundings of an institute of higher learning in a country whose citizens, among the most aware and freedoms-plastered in the world - by presenting Iran's redoubtable president a yet another public forum for his pathetic rants?It's clear what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gained. Recognition of his status as a troubling world agitator of unfortunate recent renown and much-earned scorn. But frankly, it would be most instructive to know definitively, apart from offering a measure of legitimacy and credibility by the very formal invitation to lecture at the highly esteemed Columbia University - what was gained?
Do we know now what truly motivates this man beyond his fanciful self-identification with a mystical ancient prophet of Islam? This former Revolutionary Guard, former Mayor of Tehran and now de facto dictator of the country whom former Grand Ayatollah Khomeini moved from a kingdom to a rigid theocracy is exactly what he appears to be.
His agenda is writ large in his boastful harangues, despite his cautionary denials when he has been deposited on Western soil. The aeons-long sting of power and control wrested from Islam's political aspirations of universal power still resonate and still impel fervid Islamists to recapture what was once nearly theirs; world domination.
Kind of silly, aspirationally, given that we are world of powers, small and large, intransigent and co-operative, fully reflective of the full range of human desires, emotions and failings. But back to the original enquiry here: what was gained? Nothing, actually.
In his bid to restore public faith in his judgemental abilities, Mr. Bollinger added no lustre to his reputation by repudiating and reviling the character of an international pariah whom he had personally invited to take part in a classic academic exchange of ideas and opinions. He has, instead, sullied himself by a studied lack of awareness in his judgemental capabilities, in the demonstration of his profound lack of intellectual and social responsibility.
By his cynical attack on Ahmadinejad, in introducing his guest du jour of unquestioned ill repute in most thinking circles, he hoped to restore his tarnished credentials, but what he succeeded in doing was to promote a faint and unfortunate sympathy for a dangerously doltish ignoramus with great destructive powers.
And just incidentally, through the persuasive powers of respect for academic institutions of well-earned reputation for instructive learning and probity, enabled that vile dictator to over-reach into an audience who might have been stirred to recognition of some elusive truths hidden tantalizingly within the garbled message of denial.
Not the least of which were to be reckoned the over-arching ambitions of a powerful government aspiring to control much of the world; politically, economically, culturally, socially. Just so, incidentally mirroring the aspirations of power-assertive Iran.
Ahmadinejad's handlers/speech writers/research team prepared him well, at least in this regard, assiduously performing their homework to uncover home-grown dissent in left-wing corridors of academia and the press, adopting a handy socialist device to detract from his own indefensible agenda.
Much as Osama bin Laden did recently, fervently espousing in part a civil liberties-inspired and Marxist-oriented ideal, aligning himself, it would seem, with the third column in the despised society his ambition it is to destroy or at least replace.
He had, ready at hand, a neat laundry list of civil-liberty failings on the part of the official U.S. Reflecting in part, the counter-attack launched by Iran on Canada, for its offence in pointing out Iran's dire anti-human rights excesses at a United Nations forum.
So, does a university president demonstrate his intellectual superiority and humanity by publicly savaging, searingly castigating a petty tyrant on his ignorance, lack of humanity and awareness of history to gain ground in the universal battle against what he rails at?
The man must be given his due; he was more unflappable than his accuser. Where the latter expressed a fervently emotional repudiation of all that his guest stood for, the former remained self-contained and rigorously unmoved by the accusations; extending courtesy to his accuser, withal.
Ahmadinejad is so staunchly convinced of his righteous direction he is prepared to respond to none but the Almighty.
Reason with such as he? Bring him to account before a cosmopolitan audience of free thinkers and audaciously-available intellects priding themselves on their ability to sift the wheat from the chaff? What, exactly, has been accomplished?
A silly display of righteous indignation from a cerebral administrator which reflects itself as an exercise in triumphal egotism.
Labels: Heroes and Villains, Realities, That's Life
posted by Pieface @ Tuesday, September 25, 2007
<< Home