Studio8 - Uniting the Arts

Not since the beat generation has somebody got so cold a welcome at Columbia!

When will a university prez. say to BUSH, you, sir, are a petty cruel dictator!

?

i think that we need to be rational and discerning
we could've taken the opportunity to invite Amenwhoozewhatsis to Dachau
for a tour
we could've asked him about his impression of AlQaida
and how Iran has been helping Afghanistan deal with this

We could have asked him about how he got elected in Iran and realised that he is not exactly a dctator, but a strongman politico, who reports to the mullahs and who ultimately is accounable to his people, and asked when he will run for re-election


then we could have asked him the other questions
about civil rights inside Iran
about Iranian covert support for the Shihite militias inside Iraq

it was very poorly handled and inflammatory
not good for any kind of de escalation
more about arousing popular sentiment in both countries towards a confrontation
on democracy now today
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl? ... /25/142240

a related note: (the highlighting is mine for obvious reasons)

Un líder difícil de describir

Por Ernesto Seman *
desde Nueva York


Es difícil para Occidente describir al presidente iraní Mahmud Ahmadinejad como un dictador brutal o un fanático religioso, aun si lo es. No es el fantasma que uno quisiera evitar en una calle oscura a medianoche. Con su ropa común y en un barrio cualquiera de Buenos Aires, pasaría como un “turco simpático”, uno de los nuestros, diría alguien desprovisto de la generosa información que poseemos sobre el apoyo sistemático de Irán a acciones terroristas, su vínculo con el movimiento político y terrorista Hezbolá, y las características dictatoriales del régimen iraní. No parece Hussein, ni Bin Laden, ni Mobutu, ni Pinochet, por enumerar imágenes con las que se define la figura antidemocrática contra la cual delineamos nuestros rasgos más civilizadamente seductores.

En tiempos de iniciativa limitada y políticos temerosos, atados a formatos previsibles, virtualmente mudos ante sus audiencias, Ahmadinejad pasó el día de ayer en Nueva York como un líder que, en apariencia, se expuso a las reglas básicas del espacio público democrático: una conferencia de prensa abierta en el National Press Club, una charla pública en la Universidad de Columbia, todo con una sonrisa amplia, en lugares hostiles frente a los cuales no tenía más poder que su palabra y la distancia magnética que aún generan los jefes de Estado.

La conferencia en el Press Club por caso ilustra las dificultades para lidiar con Ahmadinejad. El presidente iraní rechazó una acusación sobre la condena a muerte contra dos reporteros en su país, dijo desconocer los casos y preguntó de quiénes se trataba. El periodista (convencido por su propia fantasmagoría ideológica más que por alguna evidencia de que el iraní rechazaría la pregunta, se enojaría o llamaría a una jihad en su contra) se mostró sorprendido, apenas pudo balbucear los nombres y desde ese momento los roles se invirtieron. Ahmadinejad, secular en sus hábitos y religioso en su prosa, embanderado con principios básicos de la libertad de prensa (acompañar la denuncia con datos precisos e investigación rigurosa), pedía aclaraciones, y el periodista suplicaba “pasemos a la siguiente pregunta” como lo hubiera hecho un dictador incómodo, sepultando para siempre en su ineptitud los escasos segundos en los que esos dos periodistas pudieron haber salvado sus vidas.

Ahmadinejad, cabe decirlo, corre con una ventaja propia de jefes de Estado en general y dictadores en particular: la inaccesibilidad del mundo que tienen bajo su mando, ese control total de la escena futura que les permite mostrarse libres en el presente, invitando a “conocer la realidad en mi país para que cambien de opinión”, como repetía Stalin durante décadas, o Videla durante años; la opresiva libertad que Sciascia vivía en Puertas abiertas. Lo ayudan también otras cosas. Una es la inteligente decisión del régimen iraní de proyectar su imagen al exterior en detrimento de la menos digerible vestimenta del ayatola Ali Khamenei (aun cuando las relaciones de poder hacia adentro sean a la inversa). Otra es la sofisticada burocracia iraní y su agresiva acción en el mundo: lo muestran sus renovados vínculos en América latina con Venezuela, Bolivia y, más importante, los lazos públicos y no tanto con Brasil; la performance de los diplomáticos iraníes en Naciones Unidas muestra la preocupación por su posición en el mundo (o, puesto de otro modo: dar conferencias de prensa abiertas en el exterior y nombrar funcionarios idóneos en Naciones Unidas no es algo de lo que todos puedan jactarse). Otra es la forma en la que la centralidad que Irán adquiere en el mundo ayuda al régimen islámico a disimular, atenuar y reprimir las profundas tensiones entre fuerzas sociales internas desarrolladas en sus 28 años de vida. Y otra es la notable debilidad de la posición de Estados Unidos en Irak, que deja a Irán a las puertas de tener una injerencia sin precedentes entre los movimientos islámicos de la región. Todo lo cual obliga a Estados Unidos a buscar que los medios muestren los misiles iraníes desde todos los ángulos imaginables para confirmar(nos) que, sí, el régimen iraní es un peligro tan grande para la población iraní como para el mundo, e Israel en particular.

Ahmadinejad hablará hoy en Naciones Unidas, al igual que el presidente argentino Néstor Kirchner, quien probablemente señale la falta de cooperación de Irán en la investigación del atentado a la AMIA de 1994. La investidura de jefe de Estado en un mundo diverso lo obliga a Kirchner a defender los intereses de sus ciudadanos, tratando de que esa defensa colabore con (o al menos no obstruya la) la construcción de un orden internacional más justo. La idea de que una acusación de Kirchner a Irán puede nutrir a Estados Unidos de argumentos públicos para un ataque militar es un tanto exagerada. No sólo porque la irrelevancia de Argentina en el mundo es lo suficientemente marcada como para asegurarle una limitada capacidad de daño, sino también porque Estados Unidos ya tiene una docena de ejemplos más claros que el de la AMIA sobre los lazos de Irán con el terrorismo, porque ése no es el eje sobre el cual se argumenta la eventualidad de un ataque (sino su potencial poderío nuclear), y porque Estados Unidos, al mismo tiempo que necesita una imagen antagónica ante la cual actuar, también ha dejado en un segundo plano la construcción de consenso internacional para su acción militar. Paradójicamente, una ofensiva diplomática argentina puede significar mucho más para Irán que para Estados Unidos, en un sentido no muy feliz.

Las estrecheces en las que se encuentra Kirchner y que hacen que el tema sea uno de los más delicados de la agenda internacional pasan por cómo ejercer la defensa de los intereses argentinos de la forma más eficaz: hacer justicia, castigar a los culpables, garantizar que la libertad religiosa y cultural pueda ser ejercida por aquellos que estén en una posición vulnerable, evitar un nuevo atentado; todos objetivos nobles, pero nada indica que vayan de la mano, ni que sean compatibles.*

Escritor y periodista. Su próxima novela, Todo lo sólido, aparece en diciembre.

link: http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpai ... 09-25.html

Frankly, I am appalled at the conduct of the university's president or whatever, and his out of line introduction to achmacadine, or whatever his name is.

Like I said before all I really know about this man is that bad men are saying he is bad. What kind of authentic information does that give me?

We keep on invading other cultures under the guise that they are bad, because they are not willing to become like America. It's clear thanks to our current administration of thugs, that the real reason we invade is to secure assets not rightfully ours, just like we did with the native Americans here. We called them savages and made them bad guys so we could take this very land from them, which really, we could have shared!

Does this legacy, still continuing, make you proud and happy to be an American? Are you so much better than other cultures just because you are an American? Please tell me you don't feel this way!

America is not really very inviting anymore to other cultures because of the closeminded, theocratic turn it is taking, and being allowed to take by the American people.

We illustrated yesterday to the world, how small minded and fearful we are, and I am very offended that we did that.

I can't help but wonder if some agreement was made, between the dean and bushco that the Iranian prez would only be allowed to come to the university if such an introduction was given. Such closemindedness seems to be rampant in our government, and I could see the president seeing something like this as a divine opportunity to create discord, fearmongering, and therefor, more imagined "power" for his administration. It all seemed rather staged to me.

Don't get me wrong. I am NOT advocating for Iran. I'm advocating for some integrity on the part of the US. Just like in my opposition for the war in Iraq, which I too, opposed from the start. I am not non-supportive of our troops, in fact I am trying to support them out of a bogus situation!

In fact, I am a strong believer in discord being an opportunity for negotiating harmony.
Why is it, that for so many in power, discord is automatic war and killing?

I am sorry to say that I do not trust any aspect of Bushco, the congress, democrats, republicans, anyone in government. It's become glaringly obvious to me, that government is just another word for manipulation powered by money that pays for lies, that we the people eat like junk food.

We are the ones losing and we continue to lose, even if we "win" this stupid, mindless, greedy, murderous war. The stance of this war, in my opinion, is one of glaring weakness. All wars, come from weakness of human depth.

I"m sorry we had to insult the Iranian ruler, dictator, whatever he is. It certainly gave the world insight into our lack of manners and intelligence, and illustrates us plainly, as juvenile name callers, lacking any depth when it comes to the goals of resolve and world peace.

If anyone in power right now really had America's best interests at heart and the power and or gumption to stick with it, then Bush and his thugs would have been gone and replaced long ago.

H

i'm trying to find the introduction on video... I'm looking on youtube.. I found the whole speech but not the intro. I didn't see it.

What the heck did the university president or dean or whoever he was say anyway?

Still searching...

I can't escape the irony that we glorious, liberated, Enlightened USAmericans are spending so much time attacking moveon.org for the whole "or General Betray Us?" thing--that we are obbsessed with how condemnable this was, while we couldn't understand the Islamic world being upset by those cartoons (remember them?) of Muhammed riding the missiles of the Axis of Evil. And we are a bastion of free speech and liberty?

And now poor Amedinijad (I wish I could pronounce it; I'm too not a supporter, but I think it furthers my ugly Americanism that I can't even learn 'the enemy's' name) comes to be harrassed at Columbia for being whom we already know him to be. I suppose the Columbians can claim it was their free speech...but okay, then can't we be a nation known for manners on top of liberties?

I wish we could be a nation instead of a mere country. We play the country game and then we're nothing more than a government agency--and it's not our fault that we're screw-ups, it's our leaders' fault (the ones that slipped past hanging chads and all, so really they're not our fault either).

Is anyone else offended out the wazzoo by the political ads on TV now where families and parents of dead soldiers talk about how "worth it" their loss is? What kind of emotional turmoil are we exploiting--because there's no way I truly believe these people can justify their kids' deaths. And we certainly haven't yet seen a thankful and resolute Iraqi parent tell us that her or his child's life was worth losing for this fiasco.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. We're the responsible nation--and oughtn't we be responsible for ending it? damn damn damn[/b]

it was bizarre... he said (the uni. president that is) that Ahmenijad lacked the intellectual courage to answer his questions -- this was in the intro. mind you, as far as i know, before Iran's prez. even got to talk-- and that he's a petty, cruel dictator.

of course, he probably is petty, and cruel, but as they said on democracynow.org, theres no way he's a dictator since its the islamic supreme leader khmoeini or whatshisname who really runs trhe show, when it comes to decisions like war, cabinet appointments, etc. not the regular govt. head Ahmen. but the really travesty is that you know no university head would dare talk like that to bUSH, or other world leaders, only this process of demonizing the supposed enemy is a push toward war. could you imagine Lee Bowlingball sayingt that about bUSH. nah-uh. or evern if, Bush had gone to Ian. you think that we would stand for such treatm ent if the head of Tehran U. was talkin' trash bouit the American Prez.?

NATIONALISM'S THE PROB. NO NATIONS, ONLY PEOPLE, WORLD OVER, GLOBALIZE RESISTANCE TO POWER.

Oh, I agree about the problem of nationalism, but there's still the issue that at some point some people need to take responsibility for the actions of where they are and who they support (willingly or not). If we're all just people, then I don't wanna be the bad people or the arrogant people or the pushy people or the insulting people...but at some point, I am. Individualism is Nationalism's codependent enabler.

Individualism is Nationalism's codependent enabler.

Nice line.

The response to the general betray us ad was once again, a mere excuse for those doing wrong to cover their wrongdoing, and alot of stupid people fall for that. It was just more of Bush and his cronies "agressive barking", and why people succumb to this I do not know. It is so weak.

If they weren't guilty and weak, why the hell would they even care about the ad?

Furthermore, moveonorg has one interest, and that is to stop this war. That is all they are about. They are not democrat or republican, or perverts, or of any club but the one that wants to end this bogus war. So the fact that congress allowed the republicans to politicize the ad, make a big fuss of it and then even voted on repudiating it with them is a real eyeopener folks, to the fact that you are being manipulated, that the congress you recently voted in is a joke, and that your money is being spent to cover up the truth and manipulate you, right before your eyes!

I too like that line Joel, that individualism is nationalism's enabler. That's why we "individuals" who oppose this government and it's "cruel and petty" war, need to start talking in numbers too big to ignore.
When will the nationalists be this country's great enabler to honesty and truthfulness? When will this travesty turn around?
It's way overdue.

Get out there and speak the truth, no matter who it is.
Stop cowtowing to this administrations agenda, because their agenda has nothing to do with America, and that means you.

H

What's the big deal? General Betray Us. Of course people think that automatically anyway, so they sayit. Fuck the Dems. sissies.

That general got his feelings hurt? name callin' gonna hurt the general.

Bush is a dictator, not Ahmen.

End the war. Send Bush to the Hague to stand trial. Cheney too. And Rummy. Simple solutions to complex problems. Bring the troops home now! Close Guantanamo. No more nukes! Cut greenhouse gas emissions! READ MY LIPS: No new Taxcuts!

Fuck this shit. I'M runnin' for president! Hillary stand aside! I'm joinin' the race.

The hawks may be mostly idiots; the MoveonCheks, however, are mostly punks. General Petraeus, more or less just batting clean-up, is worth a dug-out full of Eli Parisers. Internationalism and peacenik-ism seem swell in principle; in practice often pacifism is naive if not foolhardy, as Orwell realized. (Note that few Nancy Pelosis or Hillary's are to be seen campaigning in China, or Russia or muslim countries).

The juvenile "betray-us" chant wasn't the issue: the issue pertained to mis-rep. Petraeus is 101 Airborne vet, man: they called into question his experience and his testimony--in other words, misrepresented him, if not libelled him . The Moveon squid don't know jack about that. Better some mild US nationalism than airheaded multiculturalism-lite. I am not in GOP, but I can understand why some of the centrist dems like Reid and Feinstein voted for the censure.

Someone like you, I would vote for.
Those in this game now, no matter what they are doing, they all need to go. They just are too blindsighted to be able to see the truth.
I won't vote for anyone who is involved with this government, and that includes the candidates, who want so very much to keep it going as is, so it seems.....
H

Interesting, another take on this. I asked my Pakistani doctor amigo who comes in to hospital what he thinks about this fiasco and he says that the Iranian prez is a puppet uneducated mouthpiece and had it coming.

He also supports Pakistani prez Gen Musharef. he says the former prez who was sent outa da country recently on his attempted return was the one who allowed all the radical Islamic madras schools to multiply and he said that the lady prez was massively corrupt, stole a whole lotta dough outa da country.

he also said one time that he was not surprised that the Iranians were (covertly) helping the Iraqi Shihite militias.

another take.
At work, will read thru the posts before replying further.
I was looking at this doc with my jaws agape.

Editorial in the Nation stated that the add against Petraeus was "tactically stupid" but made sense with the content. Better to compliment the opposing person and disagree with him, yet we have as a nation no problem with dissing the character of another country, and yell foul when somebody disses on our presidunce.
We give a lot of sanctimony to the military but need to remember that they are not supposed to be the ultimate arbiters in our civilian centered democracy.
Colin Powell was also career Army, but has always been a yes man. since My Lai. Someone's astuteness is not apparantly valid just because they have occupied positions of authority, witness the acting legal counsel of the CIA, name?, who was dropped from consideration for the permanent position after it was revealed that he signed on to the core torture values that persisted, including organ failure and imminent death.

But hey, I use monikers all th time for the great and holy ones.
Taped a call into http://www.wmnf.org radioactivity show for today
about somebody bemoaning the dissidence.

http://sound.wmnf.org/sound/wmnf_070926 ... yw_189.m3u

I ain't no pacifist, I just hate abuse of power and stupid power mongers.

Richardson for prez or secretary of state,
the you're fired dude says that condi rice is an empty dress.

e_dog wrote: I'M runnin' for president! Hillary stand aside! I'm joinin' the race.

dude, don't joke. i've got your campaign sign up in my window. i also drew up a little cartoon for the local paper: it has a line-up of all the other candidopes and a happy little e_dog peeing on their shoes.