As far as I'm concerned, Columbia University in New York City has lost all credibility, and has gone the way of the New York Times. President Lee Bollinger is an utter disgrace to his profession. It's a shameful state of affairs at these bastions of liberal brainwashing.
Also think the United Nations' headquarters should be moved outside the United States---maybe to Tanzania or the Netherlands---so this country has no pretense of allowing the likes of Ahmadinejad and Chavez in ever again.
More from the Weekly Standard here.
UPDATE: More on Columbia University President Lee Bollinger can be found here. He is best known in the world of college administration for his strong political stand on racial preferences in college admissions processes. But I would bet, he would ironically be against racial profiling in the war on terror.
Bollinger can accurately be characterized as the Head Pastor of the left-leaning Church of Political Correctness.
More from the Weekly Standard here.
UPDATE: More on Columbia University President Lee Bollinger can be found here. He is best known in the world of college administration for his strong political stand on racial preferences in college admissions processes. But I would bet, he would ironically be against racial profiling in the war on terror.
Bollinger can accurately be characterized as the Head Pastor of the left-leaning Church of Political Correctness.
It's beyond shameful...it's treason!!!
ReplyDeleteHmm, I just left a comment at my sister's blog expressing much of the same things as you do here. Its offensive to me and very frustrating that many in our own country are giving credibility to jerks like Amedinijad. GRRR!
ReplyDeleteWeb, as usual, you rely solely on right-wing news sources, and as such, get your story about 1/2 right.
ReplyDeleteColumbia University does not currently have an ROTC program. The vote taken in 2005 to restore the program was 5-5. They do have a partnership with Fordham University's Army ROTC program. That means that Columbia students wishing to be part of an ROTC program can take part at Fordham, and will receive college credits through Columbia for their participation. Fordham University partners with universities and colleges throughout the New York city area. The information about Columbia's ROTC partnership, and info about ROTC programs around the country are easily accesible by doing your own google search.
Not every college and university has ROTC. Those that do very often have partnerships with other institutions of higher learning in their area. My husband is a NROTC grad from Northwestern, and they partner with Loyola University. All ROTC programs are headed by a CO and XO who are active duty military officers. As you can imagine, the services are in a tough spot filling those billets as Army and USMC officers in particular tend to be needed elsewhere.
I wouldn't rely on William Kristol for your info about the military. He somehow avoided military service during Vietnam, despite graduating from high school in 1970, and college in 1973. He's entitled to his opinion as an American, but frankly, when our country needed him, he was no where to be found, and as a military spouse, that speaks volumes.
As for Columbia having the President of Iran speak, I'm of two minds. On the one hand, it certainly is in our interest to understand our enemies. On the other, he's clearly an unhinged dangerous fanatic. But faulting Columbia for having him speak and not having ROTC is kind of a specious argument. I mean, if Columbia DID have an active ROTC program, would that somehow make his presence more tolerable? Somehow I doubt it.
And before you say it, I know, I know, I'm a brainwashed anti-American liberal moonbat who can't see the forest for the trees and wants to wear a burqua and live under sharia law, or something like that.
Thanks, Vienna.
ReplyDeleteCome, let us move on from those labels together while we can.
Web, I'm all for it. I think there is too much name calling on both sides. I'm sure you can tell how much it bothers me to have mine or anyone else's patriotism questioned. I take it very, very personally. I know I shouldn't, but I feel like Democrats and liberals in particular have to constantly prove their patriotism, while people on the other side of the aisle get a free pass, as if simply by being a Republican you automatically love your country more than your neighbor.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, that's the world we live in I guess. I usually blow it off by thinking, those who have to yell the loudest about how patriotic they are tend to be the least patriotic among us.
I hear you, Vienna. And while I am running out the door, I can say my response to that is not an either/or but rather a both/and.
ReplyDeleteI often think people like Lee Bollinger et al mean well, but when it comes down to it, I do question his patriotism, but worst than that, I question his sanity.
Appreciate your comment.
Here's the part that I don't understand about this whole issue. While we do need to know our enemy (notice not understand, but know, because even understanding cannot defuse a difference in beliefs) why the desire to allow him a platform to espouse hatred. A platform that will only allow him to continue to bring additional light to his torch. Like a spoiled child, in some capacity, ignoring him in this instance (as with the WTC episode) would go much further than allowing him a platform to speak on. In a day and age when we teach our soldiers that there actions on the battlefield, even those of a Private, can influence events around the world why do we not hold ourselves to the same standard. Why do we make it such that it seems we are continually swimming against the current? Some things I truly do not understand. To me this is the equivalent of allowing Mussolini to come and talk in the midst of active, direct action engagements with Iranian military members around the globe. Although this action does not surprise me, what does surprise me is a lot of our citizens turning a blind eye and accepting that it. To me at least, and I am only one voice in the sea, this is wrong.
ReplyDeleteThat's wrong Web. Just because he thinks and acts differently and than you doesn't mean he loves this country any less. You want to question his sanity, that's fine. You want to question his judgement, fair game. His patriotism should be off limits.
ReplyDeleteI mean, you support the war in Iraq, and the greater war on terror, but your children are not serving. Why not? Would it be fair for me to say, well, you must not love this country very much if you aren't willing to send your children to fight for it? Is it fair for me to question your loyalty to this country given that you don't have anyone fighting the global threat of Islamic terrorism?
First, I don't believe questioning someone's patriotism, or sanity or whatever, should ever be off limits. What you questsion about me is your right and your business. You seem to imply that nothing someone could ever do could cast doubts on their love of country. I simply don't agree, though sometimes I would say some actions represents extreme naivete more than anything else.
ReplyDeleteI believe Lee Bollinger is giving a public forum to a man who would destroy our way of life, if he could. He wants to wipe Israel off the map. I think it's a travesty that he's even allowed into the country. But an even worse mistake that Columbia wants to hear what he has to say. We already know what he has to say and say and say.
As to questioning my patriotism because of what my children do...that's fine, if you wish. However, my children are adults and I am not responsible for their choices around Iraq or anything else. But you can certainly take me to task for not being over there if you like!
OK, obviously this isn't going to get us anywhere. I just think that the patriotism quesiton is tossed around on the right like it's no big deal. It is. I am sure you still question my patriotism, and that's fine. It's a free country, and you're welcome to think whatever you want about me or anyone else.
ReplyDeleteAs for your kids not serving, parents are the best examples for their children. I like the adage "to whom much is given, much is expected." I talk to my kids about what it means to be a good citizen: voting, being involved, knowing what is going on in the world around us. Serving one's country is a calling that all of us should share, and I hope that our sons will follow in my husband's footsteps and take an oath "to protect and defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic."
Part of the problem these days is that there isn't anyone out there in either party calling for mandatory national service. Frankly, it's scary that so few people in the 18-42 age range actually want or feel a need to serve our country. I don't think it speaks very highly of what we're teaching our kids these days.
Not to be snide Vienna but "what we're teaching our kid's" and the example of Lee Bollinger, would appear to answer your question.
ReplyDeleteWell, it's more than a bit of a stretch to assume that every University President is exactly like Lee Bollinger. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most people - myself included - had never even heard of this guy. He's no more representative of what we're teaching our kids than the President of Bob Jones University is. There are extremes on both sides.
ReplyDeleteI mean, do kids today really need to go to college to learn about giving back to and/or serving their country? Obviously most parents aren't teaching it, or the military wouldn't have such a hard time finding qualified recruits.
Hmmmm...I can't wait for the students to violently storm the stage to prevent Ahmadinejad from speaking--you know--like they did when Jim Gilchrist (Columbia Political Union voted against having his October 4th visit) took the stage there sometime last year. Somehow, I don't think it'll happen, but I hope to be pleasantly surprised. Now the comparison between those two situations speak volumes to me.
ReplyDeleteHaving Ahmadinejad on a stage somewhere speaking in the U.S. would be no better than having Hitler take the stage and spew his filth, in my opinion. Anyone willng to give him a platform is as nutty as Ahmadinejad is.
We already know what Ahmadinejad thinks--he's stated his opinions publicly and on the world's stage many times. What insight does Columbia U. expect to gain from his visit and speech?
While we're having soooo much fun with the patriotism thing and so-called "name calling" and other such fun stuff, I thought I'd offer my best tongue-in-cheek diatribe. Ready? Here it goes:
Whoops--I haven't served in the military. I guess that disqualifies me from offering my opinions in public. Oh, no wait--that disqualifies me from offering my opinion on all things military. Sorry--my mistake. Well, since I haven't been a dentist, firefighter, cop, farmer, NFL player, POTUS, lawyer, judge, janitor, sewage plant manager, actor, pharmacist, etc.; that disqualifies me from offering my critiques and opinions about those subjects, too.
Oh, silly me--I forgot. I'm a right-wing imperialistic brownshirt with no brain of his own who gets his marching orders from Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. I'm too stupid to form my own thoughts and opinions and understand the nuance of listening to our enemies to find out why they hate us so much--and Chimpy McBushitler, and...and...Haliburton is evil...and uh, --No Blood for Oil!!!...and...and...and...and...if mothers ruled the world there would be no G**-da**** wars!!!
...or something like that. Let me know if I left anything out.
Well Vienna, I did not say "that every University President..." is like Bollinger. But we are not really talking about 'everyone' having heard of him. We are talking about the members of his community of educators, we are talking about the students upon which his influence has direct bearing on the experience they take away from Columbia U.
ReplyDeleteYou will disagree I suspect, but I would venture to guess that Bollinger is more representative of our national educational institutions (K-12 +) than is the "President of Bob Jones University..."
Of course there are extremes on both sides, no one would dispute that assertion. But that is a facile argument in this case. Columbia U., as an institution, would argue most vehemently, I think, that they are not extreme, but instead reflect mainstream thought in America.
It is reprehensible what they (Bollinger) are doing. If it continues it will lead to the death of this great nation. You are I may not see it, but our children will.
Wow, Tom. Hit a nerve or something? I never said you aren't allowed to have an opinion about the war, the military or anything else. I never said you can't think for yourself. You're entitled to whatever opinion you want - and so am I. Whether you chose to serve in the military is your choice. You want to think that blogging = military service, go ahead. You want to listen to Rush or Sean, great - someone's got to do it I guess and it won't be me. You didn't serve in the mitliary, fine, we all make decisions about our lives, and if you're happy about it, that's wonderful. Though I suspect from your posting that it's a sensitive issue.
ReplyDeleteMy point is this: conservatives and Republicans make a point of saying that the war we are in right now is the most important test the United States of America will ever face. The future of our country rests on defeating Islamic terrorism around the globe. Listen to Mitt Romney speak about the GWOT. He talks a good talk about the war - he really seems like he's completely and totally focused on winning in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the globe.
And then look at his family. At a time when the Army and USMC are stretched to the breaking point, not one - NOT ONE - of his sons are serving our country. Why is that? I'm sorry, serving on your dad's campaign and driving around in the Romney Winnebago isn't quite the same as being in an Humvee in Anbar province, no matter how Mitt Romney tries to spin it.
I mean, imagine if in WWII the overwhelmming majority of American households said, sure we support the troops and we want the US to win, but as far as sending one of our children to war - don't think that works for us. Either we are all in this war together, or we are not. There either aren't enough parents out there encouraging their children to take the fight to the enemy, or there are too many parents out there assuming that someone else's family can pick up the fight. We should be at a time an place where the armed forces are turning people away because we have so many volunteers. Sadly, that 's not the case.
Wow, Tom. Hit a nerve or something?
ReplyDeleteHardly. You do know what tongue-in-cheek means, don't you?
Yes, I know what that means.
ReplyDeleteYes, I know what that means.
ReplyDeleteHmmm...could've fooled me with your response--you must've missed it when I said this: "I thought I'd offer my best tongue-in-cheek diatribe."
I'm getting quite a chuckle out it, though, because it actually looks like you're the one with the exposed nerve.
A couple of humorous observations about you're opinions, of which you have every right to have, misguided as they are:
You are guilty of the very thing you're slapping Webutante's wrists for by misreading my comment, and by somehow thinking you struck a nerve, although you didn't even get it half right.
You presume to know that Romney never encouraged his children to enter the military. Do you know him personally? Perhaps you could figure out a way to ask him those questions directly, since only he can speak for himself. Kids will still make their own decisions, you know. Moreover, do you have the same concerns with Democratic presidential candidates' service and with the military service of their progeny? I'm assuming you do, interesting you chose to focus only on Romney, though. By reading your comments, I'd think you'd require both sides of the aisle to have service backgrounds before they could discuss the war in Iraq.
You paint conservatives with a broad brush concerning the patriotism topic. Whatever. I'm not really concerned with whether someone has served in the military when discussing the war in Iraq. Feel free to categorize me though; liberals love to do that.
Where do you get the idea the military would turn away volunteers, no matter how good the recruiting numbers are? I'd bet they'd find a place for every volunteer that came into their recruiting offices. I may be wrong; it wouldn't be the first time--but I would bet they wouldn't. I know your main point was that you'd wish more people would volunteer. Poorly worded wishing, I guess.
I don't even know where to begin with this comical fabrication: "You want to think that blogging = military service, go ahead." That one was the big knee-slapper!
Thanks, you've made my day! Have a fantastic weekend!
:-)
Thanks for the comment, Tom. Glad I could help. I felt badly yesterday about how I responded to your email. I fully understand that some men and women fight, and other stay stateside help by keeping people physically fit and rallying around the flag. We all do our part in fighting global terrorism, and I thank you for your service. I mean it.
ReplyDeleteI don't know Mitt Romney. Never met him or his kids. Maybe he and his wife did talk to their sons about giving back and serving their country. Maybe they all decided it wasn't for them. They seem happy serving America traveling in the family winnebego. I'm happy for them.
As for military volunteers, there was a time not long ago when the military could be more selective about who they signed up. For example, new recruits had to have a GED or High School Diploma. They had to be 35 or younger. They couldn't have any misdemeanor or felony charges against them. They couldn't have any drug or alcohol offenses on their record. Now, the military (the Army in particular) will take recruits up to 42 (though I'm guessing that if you were in good physical shape they'd take you if you were older). They take a higher percentage of recruits without a GED or diploma. Some misdemeanor offenses are ok, as are some minor drug or alcohol charges. Your local recruiter might be able to answer any questions you have, or google information about recruting. It's a tough business these days.
The sad fact is that some branches of the military have had to lower some standards in order to meet their recruiting goals. I'm not in anyway demeaning their service. It's hard to sign up to go do multiple tours in Iraq or Afghanistan. I'm heartened there are people out there willing to put their lives on the lines. I wish them a safe tour and a joyous return. I know what it's like to have a spouse deployed to a war zone; it's an emotional roller coaster, and I feel for those going through it.
Enjoy the rest of your weekend.