Bollingers' bollocks redux

This is a comment on Dave's comment - "the invite should never have occurred" - on my comment on Mick's post 'Bollinger Bollixes his Brief' to the effect that confronting A'jad was a decent deed performed by a hypocrite who should not have invited this A'hole to speak. It's a post so as to include the video:

Reasonable men (and we too) can disagree whether Bollinger got his multiculti knickers in a twist with the invite. I do agree he's a hypocrite because he opposed the ROTC at Columbia, but I'm glad that he invited A'jad and I'm glad at his take-down which was wholly effective. Suppose Hitler, Stalin or Mao, with the world watching, had been confronted to their faces with a similarly levelheaded summary of their scumminess. That would have brought them into ridicule and consolidated resistance. It would also be an inspiration in history. No invite, no takedown, no autobeclowning, no inspiration.
"I am only a professor who is also a university president. Today I feel all the weight of the modern civilised world yearning to express its revulsion at what you stand for. I only wish I could do better."
Let right and wrong confront each other in public. Christ said "the truth shall make you free." He didn't add "but the truth is reserved for courteous non-hypocrites in private."

The practical upshot of Bollinger's invite has been to break the liberal meme that BigBad Bush must be deterred from attacking the tolerant, Islamic, more-sinned-against-than-sinning resistance-fighters in Iran so as to steal their oil (tho I would be happy to steal their oil). By speaking against homosexuality in PoliticallyCorrect-i-bad U, NYC, A'jad committed a mortal sin on liberal soil and that's cooked his goose with the bien pissants far worse than his implied threats to nuke Israel.

Bollix (American); Bollocks (English); Cojones (Spanish).

Comments