MoveOn Dot Suppress

This is the funniest thing I have seen yet about the whole ruckus over MoveOn.org and their smear tactics with the ad about General David Petraeus. It appears that those champions of truth, justice, the American way and free speech are trying their damnedest to suppress the free speech of fellow Democrats that want to distance themselves from the narcissistic and juvenile behavior of the "buyers and owners" of the Democratic party. With lawyers, too.

MoveOn.org's excessively discounted broadside against General David Petraeus in the New York Times two weeks ago won't rank as its most successful tactic. The full-page nastygram appears not only to have solidified Republican opposition in the Senate for proposals to curtail the Iraq war effort, but also to have shaken the group's rich Hollywood funding base.

So it's not too surprising that the liberal advocacy group would be a mite touchy from all the blowback online, even though it should be used to the abuse by now. So touchy, in fact, that it's been sending out cease-and-desist letters to CafePress, a website that lets people offer custom-designed t-shirts, coffee mugs and the like for sale. Last week it demanded that the site remove eight items, arguing that they violated MoveOn's merchandising trademarks……

……Beyond that, it's amazing that MoveOn would try to squelch political speech. That's another clear purpose of the targeted items. Take, for example, this message on a t-shirt designed by a lifelong Democrat from Southern California:

General Petraeus has done more for this country than MoveOn.org. MoveOn.org, the worst friend a Democrat could have! Move Away from Move On!

CafePress told MoveOn to pound sand. Good for them. As the LA Times points out, parody and critiques are protected so long as the intent is not to mislead. Which is why this is not actionable. Because it certainly is not meant to mislead. In ANY way. At all.

UPDATE: And while MoveOn was busy trumpeting how much money their smear ad made for them, the real payoff was the alienation of moderate voters. Rasmussen reports:

Twenty-three percent (23%) of Americans approve of an ad run in the New York Times “that referred to General Petraeus as General Betray Us.” A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 58% disapproved. Those figures include 12% who Strongly Approve and 42% who Strongly Disapprove.

Self-identified liberals were evenly divided—45% approve and 39% disapprove. However, only 19% of moderate voters approve while 62% disapprove.

Forty-seven percent (47%) of all adults say that “stunts like the MoveOn.org ad” hurt the cause they believe in. Only 12% believe they help the cause while 17% say there is no impact. Twenty-four percent (24%) are not sure. Again, political liberals are divided with 27% saying they help and 32% taking the opposite view. Fifty percent (50%) of moderates and 57% of conservatives say that these sorts of events hurt the cause the group is trying to promote.

Pyrrhus said it best:  "If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined.".

UPDATE: Thanks to Michelle Malkin for linking this. Please do look around a little if you've followed the link over. Thanks.

Take Five

Had enough nattering nabobs for today? One of the reasons I try to inject - with varying degrees of success - some humor on this site is that too much dwelling on the days events can be really bad for one's sanity. Or one's soul, depending on the day's news. So let's take a break. How about a complete change of subject. Let's talk about Dave Brubeck. He's been one of the jazz greats for more than 50 years now. And he's been married to the same woman for 65 of his 86 years. He just played at the 50th annual Monterey Jazz Festival. He played at the very first one, too.

The Wilton, Connecticut, resident still performs about 50 to 60 concerts a year, such as in Monterey where he also played at the first festival in 1958. He has slowed his pace from about 80-100 concerts a year a decade ago and 200 concerts in the 1980s, said producer Russell Gloyd.

"Until I stop going," is the time Brubeck said he plans to end performing and recording. He was already a big star in the 1950s and appeared on the cover of Time Magazine in 1954.

His return to Monterey this weekend coincided with his 65th wedding anniversary on Friday to Iola, to whom he proposed on their very first date at a fraternity dance. "It is weird," Iola Brubeck said. "Sometimes your intuition is right."

Soon Brubeck took her to a black San Francisco night club for an important test. "I wanted my wife to see the environment I wanted to live in … which was black night clubs," he told Reuters in a 90-minute interview. "She was right at home being the only white face."

JAZZ AMBASSADOR

With his 1950s preppy appearance of khaki pants, jacket and tie and horn-rimmed glasses, Brubeck has long served as a jazz ambassador, popularizing concerts on college campuses but also playing black clubs in the then-segregated South.

"I had a following that accepted me regardless of their race, my race," said the composer of standards such as "In Your Own Sweet Way" and "The Duke."

Myself, I am not much of a fan of jazz. Some I like, a lot I don't understand. But there are a few songs that are transcendental. It does not matter if you are a fan of a certain genre or not. So it is with Take Five, from the 1959 album Time Out. Enjoy.

One Reason I Think Columbia Made A Mistake

Yes, Lee Bollinger did a masterful smackdown of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Yes, he exposed a lot of the mad ravings of Iran's president for what they are - mad ravings. All to the good, in the great scheme of things. Bollinger spoke truth to power, to use the left's favorite phrase. And here is what reached the people of Iran:

Despite entire US media objections, negative propagation and hue and cry in recent days over IRI President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's scheduled address at Colombia University, he gave his lecture and answered students questions here on Monday afternoon.

On second day of his entry in New York, and amid standing ovation of the audience that had attended the hall where the Iranian President was to give his lecture as of early hours of the day, Ahmadinejad said that Iran is not going to attack any country in the world.

Before President Ahamadinejad's address, Colombia University Chancellor in a brief address told the audience that they would have the chance to hear Iran's stands as the Iranian President would put them forth.

He said that the Iranians are a peace loving nation, they hate war, and all types of aggression.

Referring to the technological achievements of the Iranian nation in the course of recent years, the president considered them as a sign for the Iranians' resolute will for achieving sustainable development and rapid advancement.

The audience on repeated occasion applauded Ahmadinejad when he touched on international crises.

At the end of his address President Ahmadinejad answered the students' questions on such issues as Israel, Palestine, Iran's nuclear program, the status of women in Iran and a number of other matters.

The defenders of free speech neglect to understand a basic fact - it does not work in a country that stomps on it. (And for all the Koz Kidz who rant incessantly - this country isn't the one that silences people.) All that happened at Columbia was that a mad dwarf was given a really, really tall soapbox to stand on. Regardless of what Bollinger said or did. Because if you speak truth to power and nobody is allowed to hear you,, did you really ever speak at all?

There are some people I genuinely respect who think that Mad Mahmoud's appearance at Columbia was an objectively good thing. I respect that. If we all thought alike and echoed one another's words we'd be thoughtless automatons. Or Koz Kidz. But I really, honestly, think this was a bad thing overall. Have at it disagreeing with me.

UPDATE: Others: Captain's Quarters, The Corner, QandO, ScrappleFace, Jammie Wearing Fool, PW Pub, Small Dead Animals, Belmont Club, Sundries Shack (who has a roundup of world headlines. Hint: Bollinger is mentioned once.)

Albino Ratfish Swarm Puget Sound!

Oh, sure, the report only mentions that they caught one. But you know how it is with rats. You see one and you have hundreds. We figure the same reasoning applies to ratfish. Especially albino ratfish.

The cartilaginous cousin of skates and rays is usually brown or black with white spots so it can blend in with the bottom of the sound, where it uses its rat-like teeth to crush clams, crabs and worms scooped up from the sand and mud.

"They're pretty ugly," said Jon Reum, a University of Washington doctoral student who spent his summer working on the marine survey. "They've got this gnarly spine on their backs, they bite, and they're just a pain to work with."

One drizzling and cold day, researchers off Whidbey Island had just pulled up another net loaded with the bottom dwellers and Reum spied the pearly white ratfish. The foot-long female was estimated to be 2 or 3 years old, making her a teenager in the ratfish world.

"This animal would just stand out like a beacon," says UW fisheries professor Ted Pietsch. "I don't know why it wasn't eaten long before."

In his 40-year-career, Pietsch had never seen an albino fish. "To my knowledge, there has never been another albino ratfish described."

The albino ratfish is almost pure white, with pale green eyes, and has a crystalline layer near the surface of its skin that give it a silvery sheen. In the marine environment, few albinos live long enough to pass on the mutant genes that block production of skin pigment.

We urge the good professor to go to the doctor at once. Ratfish rabies are nothing to fool with. The albino ratfish committed suicide before it could be interviewed, unfortunately. On a bright note, the British market chain of Marks & Spencer is very anxious to procure a supply of 'pearl tuna' and would very much like to speak to professor Pietsch about that. (We expect a commission.)

No Gays In Iran

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad revealing that there are no gays in Iran:

Since we know that there were gays - (Graphic content warning at link)  before they were executed - does this mean that they are all finished with the job they set before themselves? That seems like some sort of final solution, does it not?

Why was this guy invited to Columbia again?  

(H/T Allah)

Better Health Care

Yuval Levin has an interesting piece up over at The Weekly Standard (via Real Clear Politics). It looks at what appears to be a fairly solid consensus among Republican candidates to fix some of the real concerns people have about health care in this country - without going to full-scale socialized medicine, which is frankly where HillaryCare would lead.

An aggressive approach would seem to make political sense. Americans are clearly concerned about the cost of health care–often listing it just behind the war in Iraq among their worries–as well as the instability of coverage and the plight of the uninsured. But when pollsters begin to dig into these worries, what they turn up is not quite what the Democrats are hoping.

To begin with, those Americans who are insured–which, of course, includes the vast majority of voters–are very happy with their coverage and care. Almost 90 percent of them rated their coverage good or excellent in last year's Kaiser Foundation poll on health care, the highest rating in the two decades Kaiser has been polling. In the same poll, 93 percent were happy with their quality of care, 86 percent with their ability to get a doctor's appointment when they want to, and 77 percent with their ability to get non-emergency care without having to wait. A surprisingly high 64 percent even said they were satisfied with their health care costs. These are not voters clamoring for radical change in their health care.

Americans are also not eager to see a more intrusive federal role in health insurance. In early September, Senate Republicans were briefed on the results of recent polling of women and swing voters in key 2008 states which showed that "government-run health care" was a very powerful turn-off for these crucial constituencies. More recent surveys turn up the same result: Voters are anxious about health care, but the prospect of a new bureaucracy to manage their care worries them,

Those poll numbers indicate a serious overreach on the part of the left - again. That gives Republicans a serious weapon for the upcoming elections. The three-pronged approach that seems to be emerging as the consensus, then is straightforward:

The approach consists of three parts: reform of the way health insurance is taxed, more control for consumers in how health care dollars are spent, and more flexibility for states to use Medicaid funds to help the uninsured. Each of these pieces is larger than it seems.

Allowing a tax credit system for health care would let voters decide where they want to put their health care dollars - and make policies portable, which is really one of the major complaints with the current system. That in turn would give people control over what they want from their coverage. The resulting competition for those dollars should lead to attractively priced insurance packages as insurance companies vie for customers. The third piece is a bit more problematic, because states tend to go crazy when they have Federal dollars to throw around. But even that can be handled. Go read Levin's analysis. It is quite clearly spelled out. The polling indicate that people do not want socialized medicine - despite the hyperventilation from the left. This approach could be a serious blow to their perennial overreach.

New Nukes

NRG Corporation is expected to file the first application to build two new nuclear generating units in 30 years. The units will go up at the company's South Texas site in Bay City. (When I visited the site a number of years ago, it was known as South Texas Project or STP).

Nuclear regulators expect Tuesday morning to receive NRG's application for two new units at its facility in Bay City,Texas, about 90 miles southwest of Houston. It will be the first complete construction and operating license submission the government has processed since before the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania in 1979.

"It's bold for us as a company, but for energy and the industry, it's a good step," David Crane, NRG's president and CEO, said in a phone interview…..

….While NRG and other nuclear renaissance enthusiasts expect new reactors to come online by 2015, a March report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service predicted the process would take closer to 15 years to complete for several reasons, including the government's new review, testing and approval procedures.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Dale Klein has said the reviews should quicken once the first license for a certain reactor design is approved. Reactor vendors include Toshiba Corp., General Electric Co., and a joint venture of France's Areva Group and Constellation.

NRG selected a GE reactor design already approved by the commission and hired Toshiba to build the two units, which are expected to generate enough power for more than 2 million homes.

If NRG receives government approval by 2010, the company expects the first new reactor to be ready four years later, Crane said. New plants with similar reactors are being completed in Japan in less than 48 months, he added.

I assume then that the design they would be using is this one, the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR). I've worked at both PWR and BWR sites (and frankly, I like the PWR better - but others would disagree. It's just that there's something weird about control rods falling up into the reactor…. Folks in the nuke field will understand that.)

Partial Redemption?

UPDATE: At the top this time. Here's the video. Bollinger did hammer Ahmadinejad. Gerard Vanderluen thinks Bollinger deserves an apology, too. I'm sorry, I still disagree. Yes, Bollinger smacked Ahmadinejad down hard - and it was well done. But I still do not believe the invitation should have been extended.

I can only go from the press reports since I did not see Lee Bollinger's opening statement for Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia. But it sounds as if Bollinger let him have it, astonishingly hard. So severely that it apparently shook Ahmadinejad and made him pretty angry.

Ahmadinejad smiled as Columbia President Lee Bollinger took him to task over Iran's human-rights record and foreign policy, and Ahmadinejad's statements denying the Holocaust and calling for the disappearance of Israel.

"Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," Bollinger said, to loud applause.

He said Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust might fool the illiterate and ignorant.

"When you come to a place like this it makes you simply ridiculous," Bollinger said. "The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history."

Ahmadinejad rose, also to applause, and after a religious invocation, said Bollinger's opening was: "an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here."

"There were insults and claims that were incorrect, regretfully," Ahmadinejad said, accusing Bollinger of falling under the influence of the hostile U.S. press and politicians.

"I should not begin by being affected by this unfriendly treatment," he said.

During a question and answer session with the audience, Ahmadinejad appeared agitated. In response to one question, Ahmadinejad denied he was questioning the existence of the Holocaust.

"Granted this happened, what does it have to do with the Palestian people?" he said.

I still do not believe Columbia should have invited him, but at least Bollinger didn't let Ahmadinejad simply control the event for maximum positive PR. It  is, at best, only partial redemption, but it was a start at lease.

UPDATE: No, it's not. So what if Bollinger went after a man who should not have been on the stage in the first place? This is not a free speech issue, it is not an academic freedom issue. This is about right and wrong. And half a right doesn't make up for the intial wrong.

UPDATE: See Shrinkwrapped for a take on the "free speech" issue as well as a bit of perspective on counting coup. And just because I'm feeling snarky as heck about the whole thing:

Lies, Damned Lies And Ahmadinejad

Ahmadinejad defends Iran's rights record

NEW YORK - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defended his nation's human rights record on Monday as hundreds of protesters gathered outside the U.N. and Columbia University to protest appearances by the hard-line leader.

"People in Iran are very joyous, happy people," he told a National Press Club audience that questioned him about the arrests of students, journalists and women. "They're very free in expressing what they think."

He said women in Iran were "the freest women in the world … They're active in every level of society."

Human rights activists inside and outside Iran have decried a recent wave of arrests of people calling for political and legal reforms of the Iranian theocratic system. Ahmadinejad said those complaints were baseless, and denied knowing about any detention or harsh punishments of reformists.

"The people who give this information should see what is the truth and disseminate what is correct," he said. "I invite everyone in this session to come and visit Iran for themselves."

(Warning. Disturbing pictures follow in links.) Yeah, here's the joyous and happy people preparing to joyously and happily stone a woman to death for adultery. Here's the joyous and happy people preparing to joyously and happily hang two teenagers for being gay. Freely expressing yourself in Iran is usually followed by a swift death sentence. Oh and alcohol and sex are good for a flogging.

So, Columbia President Bollinger, are you going to ask Ahmadinejad to his face why he lies? You promised to ask the tough questions, right? So ask him why he lies. Show him the pictures and ask him.

Trade Progress - Maybe

The Washington Post editorializes on some progress in getting free-trade agreements through the Democratic-controlled Congress. It appears that a deal has been reached with Peru and that the House will sign off on it. But the Post also points out that it should not have been necessary to drag it out and that there is much work left to do.

IT APPEARS that the Democratic Congress and the government of Peru have finally gotten to "yes" on the pending free-trade agreement that the Bush administration and Lima negotiated earlier this year. Last week, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel (N.Y.) and trade subcommittee Chairman Sander M. Levin (Mich.) circulated a "Dear Democratic Colleague" letter signaling members of their party that it was now safe to vote for the pact. Mr. Rangel and Mr. Levin assured Democrats that Peru has adjusted its labor laws to meet international standards. A vote on the bill is due in Mr. Rangel's committee tomorrow; the Senate Finance Committee approved it on Friday, 18 to 3. An October floor vote on final passage is within reach.

Much of the credit for the progress belongs to Mr. Rangel and Peruvian President Alan Garcia, each of whom showed considerable flexibility and political skill in recasting the agreement in a form that House Democrats could accept — without sacrificing its tariff-slashing essence. They spent a good part of the summer dancing this minuet. But let us also be clear that it should never have been necessary in the first place. On May 10, after the Bush administration agreed to incorporate labor and environmental conditions in free-trade agreements, Democratic leaders pledged swift approval for the Peru deal and a similar one with Panama, only to renege a month later under pressure from organized labor. That sent the Peru deal into the purgatory from which it has now, seemingly, been rescued.

That purgatory is pretty crowded right now, too. Agreements with Columbia, Panama and South Korea languish there because of anti-trade pressure. Despite the pressure group's position, it is in America's best interest to make sure we are supporting democratic governments, particularly in South America. We must not turn our backs on friends, leaving them vulnerable to pressure form the budding dictatorship of (T)Hugo Chavez. Protectionism hurts the US and her allies.

Protesters Out In Force For Ahmadinejad

WCBS is reporting that protesters are already out in large numbers around Columbia University. Many of the protests are being led by elected officials and community leaders. There are a lot of very angry people who are quite willing to tell Ahmadinejad and Columbia exactly what they think of them.

 Large protests are expected at Columbia University, and some demonstrators were already out in force Sunday.

City and community leaders held a rally outside the university, along with by current and former Columbia students who are equally outraged. They say allowing President Ahmadinejad to speak sends the wrong message.

City Councilmember David Weprin said, "This invitation is a slap in the face to all New Yorkers and especially to those families who lost loved ones on Sept. 11 right here in New York City."

State Assemblyman Dov Hikind added, "He should be arrested when he comes to Columbia University, not invited to speak for God's sake."

Some political leaders and religious groups have said Columbia should not give Ahmadinejad a platform. Among them are the head of the City Council, Christine Quinn, who has said "the idea of Ahmadinejad as an honored guest anywhere in our city is offensive to all New Yorkers."

Ahmadinejad has called the Holocaust "a myth" and called for Israel to be "wiped off the map." The White House has said Iran sponsors terrorism and is trying to develop nuclear weapons, while Iran insists its atomic activities are aimed at producing energy.

Also on Sunday, the wife of former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who disappeared in March while on a business trip in Iran, appealed for Ahmadinejad to help in returning him.

"It is my greatest hope, and that of our seven children, that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will use his visit to New York to announce what the Iranian government has done to find Bob, and provide any information they have uncovered about what happened to him, where he is now, whether he is in good health, and when he will return home," Christine Levinson said.

I'm glad people are up in arms over this whole thing. WCBS has some pretty good video reports.

“$100 Laptop” Will Be Sold In US

Well, it doesn't actually cost $100 at this point, it's more like $188 now. But for two weeks in November they will go on sale to the US and the developed world in a $399, get one-give one deal. People will be able to get one and the other will be given away in a country where they cannot afford to participates in the program.

The organisation behind the project has launched the "give one, get one" scheme that will allow US residents to purchase two laptops for $399 (£198).

One laptop will be sent to the buyer whilst a child in the developing world will receive the second machine

The G1G1 scheme, as it is known, will offer the laptops for just two weeks, starting on the 12 November.

The offer to the general public comes after the project's founder admitted that concrete orders from the governments of developing nations had not always followed verbal agreements

Nicholas Negroponte told the New York Times: "I have to some degree underestimated the difference between shaking the hand of a head of state and having a cheque written.

"And yes, it has been a disappointment."

Walter Bender, head of software development at One Laptop per Child (OLPC), told the BBC News website: "From day one there's been a lot of interest expressed in having some way of people in the developed world participate in the programme."

I've been kind of leery about the real effectiveness of this project ever since I heard about it. And there have been some unfortunate early developments. But I wish them well, nonetheless.

At Least One Voice Of Dissent

The dean of the Columbia Law School, David Schizer, has publicly denounced the invitation of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia.

This event raises deep and complicated issues about how best to express our commitment to intellectual freedom, and to our free way of life. Although we believe in free and open debate at Columbia and should never suppress points of view, we are also committed to academic standards. A high-quality academic discussion depends on intellectual honesty but, unfortunately, Mr. Ahmadinejad has proven himself, time and again, to be uninterested in whether his words are true. Therefore, my personal opinion is that he should not be invited to speak.  Mr. Ahmadinejad is a reprehensible and dangerous figure who presides over a repressive regime, is responsible for the death of American soldiers, denies the Holocaust, and calls for the destruction of Israel. It would be deeply regrettable if some misread this invitation as lending prestige or legitimacy to his views.

That is one of the real dangers of inviting Ahmadinejad - giving him legitimacy at a particularly bad time to do so. While Schizer says it is his personal opinion, he released this on the official Columbia Law School website. There are some people at Columbia who have a moral compass after all. Thank you Dean Schizer.

None So Blind

Klein Halevi has an op-ed in today's Opinion Journal discussing Germany's odd stance toward Iran. Halevi reports that while on a tour of Europe talking about the situation in Iran he found that every European government is seriously worried about a nuclear Iran - except Germany. Basically, Germany is not supporting more sanctions against the rogue nuclear behavior of Iran for what appear to be all the wrong reasons. Money and misplaced guilt.

Why, then, the German obstructionism on efforts to contain a nuclear Iran? Business interests, of course, offer one explanation. Last year, German exports to Iran totaled about $5 billion. Though German trade with Iran has reportedly dropped this year by 20%, some 5,000 German companies–including major corporations like BASF, Siemens, Mercedes and Volkswagen–continue to do business in Tehran. As Michael Tockuss, former president of the German-Iranian Chamber of Commerce in Tehran, boasted last year, "Some two-thirds of Iranian industry relies on German engineering products."

Still, however substantial, business interests alone can't explain Germany's refusal to seriously confront the Iranian threat. The men and women I met in Berlin are obviously concerned about the stability of the Middle East and the safety of the Jewish state, and recognize that a nuclear-armed and expansionist Shiite regime is a danger, ultimately, to Europe as well.

Perhaps another reason for German blindness on Iran is a misplaced sense of contrition. In insisting on engagement rather than confrontation with Tehran, Germans seem to believe they are keeping faith with the lessons of their history. All problems should be peacefully resolved; no aggressor is irredeemable. That was the message offered last week by German Foreign Ministry spokesman Martin Jaeger, who, even as he insisted that Germany was ready "if necessary" to confront Iran, quickly added that Berlin was prepared to give the Ahmadinejad regime "a chance to recover the international community's lost confidence in its nuclear program. If Iran is ready to do this .     then I think we can spare ourselves future sanctions debates."

The message Germany is inadvertently sending the Ahmadinejad regime is: Continue to hold out because the West is divided and ultimately will abandon not only the military option but the economic one, too.

I would also submit that Germany is failing to recognize another, more important, lesson from their history: appeasement makes madmen much more dangerous. Yes, they have successfully turned away from the rampant militaristic behavior that defined Germany itself for many years. But they did so only because a mad dictator was allowed to get away with so much and finally led their country to utter ruin. Because other European governments let him do it in the early stages. Germany fails to see that it is falling into encouraging the same behavior that led to their own destruction. There are none so blind as they who will not see. Until it is too late.

A Perversion Of Academic Freedom

The New York Daily News unloads on Columbia University dean John Coatsworth, the man who infamously has defended inviting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak by saying he'd extend the same courtesy to Adolph Hitler.

Coatsworth's efforts to justify his remarks further showed he is absolutely ill-equipped for his post. He told the Daily News yesterday he meant "in 1939, [when Hitler] had not started the war and the Holocaust hadn't begun." Oh. So six years after Dachau, four years after the anti-Jewish Nuremberg Laws and a year after Kristallnacht, when Hitler's intentions were known to all, he'd be a fine speaker for Columbia?

The Iranian president denies the Holocaust and has declared that he would like to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. His regime is a leading exporter of terror, provided munitions that are killing U.S. troops in Iraq and is openly trying to go nuclear. He is repressing his own people with radical Islamic law and would similarly repress everyone else if given a chance.

He's his own Hitler - for now without the resources. Despite the established record - right down to Ahmadinejad's "Death to America" rallies over the weekend - Coatsworth is determined to bring the Iranian to Columbia. And Columbia President Lee Bollinger foolishly agreed to legitimize Coatsworth's circus by playing Ahmadinejad's foil. Bollinger will challenge the madman, yes he will. As if Ahmadinejad will give a hoot to what any of Columbia's academics think - although he'll take full advantage of their forum. As if anyone will learn anything that isn't well-known from the record of Ahmadinejad's actions.

I know that there are some people, like Jason Steck, who are rationally arguing that it is not a bad thing to confront Ahmadinejad in a public forum. I disagree. There are some standards of human decency that cannot be violated. This man calls for the erasure of a country and a people. His government hangs gays. There is a real evil here. That evil has no place in decent society.