Why are you (Senate) wasting time on resolutions to condemn an act of free speech when you could be passing bills to get us out of war, to better our health care, to better our environment, or to provide equal rights to all?

While you’re at it, you (House) could also practice more oversight of the executive branch of government. Stop wasting our time by representing yourselves and actually represent US!

This is the personal response portion of my MoveOn.org petition and letter to Congress telling them that we won’t “sit down and shut up” in regards to General Petraeus or anything else.

It’s no surprise that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia today amidst great protest. However, I do have to say that his speech and responses to the questions asked were charismatic and had no more spin than the speeches of most American politicans – which isn’t really saying much.

However, it’s important to note that regardless of whether President Ahmadinejad answered every question in a way the audience may have wanted, he did answer most every question posed to him. His answers, also did not come off as “fanatical” as President and Dr. Lee C. Bollinger implied stated they would.

And speaking of Dr. Bollinger…I was somewhat embarrassed appauled by his introduction and the closing remarks, which I believe were made by Dr. John H. Coatsworth.

Dr. Bollinger:

Let me close with this comment. Frankly, and in all candor, Mr. President, I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions. But your avoiding them will in itself be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mindset that characterizes so much of what you say and do. Fortunately, I am told by experts on your country, that this only further undermines your position in Iran with all the many good-hearted, intelligent citizens there. A year ago, I am reliably told, your preposterous and belligerent statements in this country (as in your meeting at the Council on Foreign Relations) so embarrassed sensible Iranian citizens that this led to your party’s defeat in the December mayoral elections. May this do that and more.

I am only a professor, who is also a university president, and today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for. I only wish I could do better.

I am in no way implying that Dr. Bollinger’s comments are incorrect, but as an introduction, they were way out of line. Any speaker – especially one that is invited as a guest – should be granted more respect than was given to President Ahmadinejad. These comments were probably political persuaded by the political aire of Ahmadinejad’s visit, but should have been reserved as a critique of his speech – if they fit the circumstance. Pre-emptively, it only embarrassed a great institution.

Going back to President Ahmadinejad’s speech, it was interesting to hear him pose many political questions and suggestions that desperately need to be asked and/or brought up in a public forum such as this regarding many things such as nuclear proliferation and US nuclear monoply, terrorism and US backed terrorism, Palestinian referendum, etc. It was also interesting, and most importantly, disgjusting to hear him dance around the accepted reality of the holocaust and to out-right deny that the “phenomenon” of homosexuality or even homosexuals, themselves, exists in Iran.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech was very provocative, but most importantly, it was important to the debate of the topics covered whether the majority agrees with him or abhors his every word. Free speech should be open to all – including patriots, diplomats, and even tyrants.

Kudos to Columbia for inviting him and holding such a forum admist great pressure to cancel, but shame on you for being such a despicable host.

I’m currently taking a Special Topics course in Political Violence and Terrorism. Recently, as a class, we watched one of my favorite documentaries: The Weather Underground. The documentary is about a splinter group of SDS (Students for a Democratic Society), The Weathermen, that bombed many sites across the US, including the US Capital, to try and incite a revolution, mostly in opposition to the Vietnam War and capitalism.

A discussion about terrorism and The Weathermen followed, with part of the class classifying the group as terrorists and the other part disagreeing – seeing them simply as violent revolutionaries. This is an example of why defining terrorism is so difficult. There must be an intent of enacting violence upon an innocent victim in order to influence a larer audience/target. The Weathermen killed no people (other than three of their own during an accidental detonation) and harmed only a few. Some people see property damage as criminal, but not violence. Without violence, terrorism cannot exist. However, there are those that do see property damage as a form of violence.

There is also the argument of justification. Some saw their actions as justified against a “capitalist monster” and others felt their actions were, to be redundant, very extreme. Then there’s the idea of justified terrorism, or is terrorism EVER justified?

Coming from a pascifist, I don’t agree with the actions of The Weathermen, but I found it really hard to classify them as terrorists or not. What do you think?