Why do people think it is wrong for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak before an american university? Why do they want to prevent him from visiting Ground Zero? Why do so many right wingers seem to think that if you are middle eastern, you are a terrorist. What do these people think he is going to do? he's the fucking president of iran. Sure he is a lunatic and sure he needs to be watched, but it isn't like he is going to blow up a construction site and it isn't like he is going to suicide bomb the students of Columbia.

What ever happened to freedom? What ever happened to this country being about supporting the inalienable rights or all men and women? What ever happened to sheer diplomacy?

I know, this guy wants to develop nukes, he thinks that we abuse our power(which we do, come on now) and wants to properly defend himself. I know. Lets refuse him the basic civil rights that we boast are our most treasured luxury. I know. Lets step on his toes, forbid him to visit public spaces, mock him for his political views and then call him a terrorist.

What the fuck is wrong with some people?

bobhhh
It's like I have said before, we will never have peace until we realize that people with competing political interests are not automatically monsters with no agenda save evil.

You want evil? Haliburton is evil. Wolfowitz and Cheney are evil. Iran is just scared and making noise. They are afraid of us and with good reason, we just march into countries now uninvited and deliver justice as it suits us.

We missed an opportunity to have a dialogue with their president and ask him questions, better to call him a terrorist and ignore what he has to say.

Truth is always worth hearing, and even if he lies, then that will be the truth we discover: his duplicity.

But we have a history of casting enemies as souless demons, hell bent on destroying freedom. It's much harder to rape a country when you dehumanize them. If we had to acknoweledge the humanity of our enemies, then our moral imperative would be to reach out to them to find peace.

Tell that to the scumbags who are profiting from this middle east conflict and they will call you naive. Remember the evil empire? Where did all those evil russians go to? Did they dissapear? Were they executed by the good folks who now run the country? No. The truth is they were never evil, they were scared of us too, and with good reason. Everybody has kids, everybody loves their children and everybody has a legitimate beef. Most of these people we demonize are just people, dealing with a bad situation, not entirely of their making. Save a few exceptions, there are no monsters here or there, just confused and angry people.

On both sides.

Good posting.

He's not entitled to US civil rights because he's not a US citizen.
But as a visiting head of state he certainly deserves a bit more respect that he's getting. Not that he's entitled not to be booed or protested against, but to treat him like a criminal because of his views and to publicly snub him so much strikes me a country showing a lot of immaturity. :(

I agree with OzoneOcean on this. He does not have have civil rights in The US - nor does he need them. If you control and censor an entire country's media apparatus, you have more free speech than anyone deserves.

The question isn't whether he has "freedom of speech" but whether or not he is welcome. I wont be inviting him to my Xmas party this year - but that's not a violation of anything inalienably his.

However, Im in favor of letting him talk wherever he is invited, and yes, I'd let him visit ground zero. Im very much in favor of more speech, more discourse, and more debate. It's good to hear what people have to say.

For instance, when he spoke he claimed "we have no homosexuals" - and he runs a country where homosexuals are routinely executed - so he actually is a monster, thanks. And it's important to let him speak so we can know that. (This is also why i think we should let Pat Robertson speak.)

But yeah - we're not showing a lot of maturity lately. Americans, I fear, do not seem strong or brave these days - when you won't let your "enemies" talk, you look like you're scared and weak. In fact, America seems determined to convince the world that we are really, really scared and weak and silly. Alas, once we were Eleanor Roosevelt - now we are the Bush twins.

StaceyMontgomery
I agree with OzoneOcean on this. He does not have have civil rights in The US - nor does he need them. If you control and censor an entire country's media apparatus, you have more free speech than anyone deserves.

The question isn't whether he has "freedom of speech" but whether or not he is welcome. I wont be inviting him to my Xmas party this year - but that's not a violation of anything inalienably his.

However, Im in favor of letting him talk wherever he is invited, and yes, I'd let him visit ground zero. Im very much in favor of more speech, more discourse, and more debate. It's good to hear what people have to say.

For instance, when he spoke he claimed "we have no homosexuals" - and he runs a country where homosexuals are routinely executed - so he actually is a monster, thanks. And it's important to let him speak so we can know that. (This is also why i think we should let Pat Robertson speak.)

But yeah - we're not showing a lot of maturity lately. Americans, I fear, do not seem strong or brave these days - when you won't let your "enemies" talk, you look like you're scared and weak. In fact, America seems determined to convince the world that we are really, really scared and weak and silly. Alas, once we were Eleanor Roosevelt - now we are the Bush twins.

You're right, executing homsexuals is monstrous, but you're also right that preventing our enemies from speaking means we are narrow minded and scared.

Surprisingly, I disagree with my esteemed co-pundits Ozoneocean and Bobhhhh.... Its about time, really. This long period of agreement shall not stand!

We have civil rights in this country because they are the right thing to do. Therefore, I have no problem affording those civil rights because 1) they are right and 2) it serves as a good example for the rest of the world.

What pisses me off is that the war in Iraq gives Ahmadinejad cred, when he doesn't deserve much.

At the same time, when will our President be going to Iran to answer questions from students there? When will Iran let him. According to Ahmadinejad, professors can go there and speak unfettered anytime. I think we should take him at his word, go out there and really talk to the Iranian people and let them see what Democracy *can* be all about -- or at least a Republic.

Sean Paul Kelly from the Agonist http://coop.agonist.org [coop.agonist.org] goes there a lot. His perspectives are fascinating.

It used to be our University Presidents were smart enough to call someone a petty small dictator without having to grandstand -- and they could do it far more cleverly, by pointing out their petty, small actions rather than running for office.

Frankly, I'd love to see more world leaders go on tour to campuses, rather than gladhanding (or...'reacharounding') each other.

I wanted to add another tidbit -- basically because it points to giving Ahmadinejad credit for far more influence than he has:

Political analysts say they are surprised at the degree to which the West focuses on their president, saying that it reflects a general misunderstanding of their system.

Unlike in the United States, in Iran the president is not the head of state nor the commander in chief. That status is held by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, whose role combines civil and religious authority. At the moment, this president’s power comes from two sources, they say: the unqualified support of the supreme leader, and the international condemnation he manages to generate when he speaks up.

"The United States pays too much attention to Ahmadinejad," said an Iranian political scientist who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. "He is not that consequential."

My two cents: While I don't go so far as to condone antagonizing or paying any more attention to this man than is necessary, I also believe it was inappropriate and a poor choice to invite him to speak at an American university in the New York area. As Iran has made no secret of their support of Hezbollah and other terrorist groups, it is, at the very least, insensitive or just plain ignorant of Columbia to invite a political figurehead of such a nation to that particular city and state.

I don't think me and Map are so far off. I don't believe President Bozo, (Iran's not ours) should be afforded American civil liberties, but just courtesy that we afford the most heinous ambassadors and valued allies as well.

We don't prove anything by insulting world leaders except that we are just as petty and narrowminded as the worst of them. I believe our ideals can survive a bunch of hoo hah from the mouths of semi sane morons, and conversly i think allowing these idiots to speak helps prove how stupid they are. How much sympathy do you think Iran has lost in Europe when he denies the Holocaust? He can't fool them, they were THERE WHEN IT HAPPENED!!!!

Give 'em enough rope, I say.

My other point was just to say that President Bozo(ours this time) does us no favors when he paints our enemies as "hating freedom" when what they really hate is American imperialsm at the hands of a few evil men and enabled by complacent adversaries in the opposing politcal party. Similarly we shouldn't proslytize about our cherished freedom of speech and prove ourselves hypocrites by calling for censorship of people with opinions we don't like.

dueeast
My two cents: While I don't go so far as to condone antagonizing or paying any more attention to this man than is necessary, I also believe it was inappropriate and a poor choice to invite him to speak at an American university in the New York area. As Iran has made no secret of their support of Hezbollah and other terrorist groups, it is, at the very least, insensitive or just plain ignorant of Columbia to invite a political figurehead of such a nation to that particular city and state.

And we don't negotiate with terrorists!!!!

I'm so tired of this John Wayne diplomacy. What do we want? To be the king of the playground or to have peace? Maybe Iran does support hamas, has it ever occured to anyone that Hamas is only popular with their constituents because in their eyes they believe that they are the thin barrier between them and the evil aspirations of Israel and America? This view of course is simplistic and wrong on many levels, but isn't our black hat, white hat approach to our ideological enemies in the middle east just as simple? Cast them as evil and ignore their humanity?

Will there be skeptics and opportunists who want to perpetuate struggle? yes, always.

Will folks be suspicious of our intentions? Sure we have earned their distrust over the past 60 years.

But if truly want peace, we must speak to our enemies and smooth out the ruffled feathers on both sides.

With technology growin so fast and egalitarian in its affordability, it won't be long before the playin field is leveled and hatred can result in uncontrolled mass slaughter.

Time is running out.

Um, "Civil Rights" pretty much only refers to your own citizens. "Human rights" is probably more appropriate to your intentions. World leaders visiting the US probably actually have a few more rights than citizens...

I don't see how you can call him an enemy. In any way. Iran isn't the enemy of the US either. Jeebus, that's like Microsoft designating 7-11 as an enemy. The US might choose to invade that country in the future, but until then they're not actually your enemy, just people who your ideas for the world don't happen to coincide with. China is more of a US enemy than Iran for goodness sake, but do people refer to China like that? Only crazy people...

I suppose it's more acceptable to call countries that are potentially easy to subjugate enemies? Hmm?

It'd just be nice if people scaled back the hairy chested foot stamping. It's hollow and unpleasant. Yes they say dumb things about Jewish people, Israel, homosexuals, but it doesn't really amount to "enemy" status, because if it did you'd be at war with most of the planet.

Basically, in terms of "an enemy of the US" the only reasons for that are strategy: the security of oil reserves in the entire region (Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc), and the safety of Israel. Don't get your own moral aspirations confused by the strategic, political, and economic objectives of the EU and the US.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070925/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_us

By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 20 minutes ago



TEHRAN, Iran - Iranians expressed dismay Tuesday at the tough reception given to their president in New York, saying his host was rude and only fueled the image of the United States as a bully.

The scenes at Monday's question-and-answer session at Columbia University and the outpouring of venom toward President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by protesters during his U.S. visit could bolster the hard-line leader at a time of high tensions with Washington.

Columbia President Lee Bollinger's statement — including telling Ahmadinejad that he resembles a "petty and cruel dictator" — offended Iranians on many levels, not least that of simple hospitality. In traditions of the region, a host should be polite to a guest, no matter what he thinks of him.

The chancellors of seven Iranian universities issued a letter to Bollinger saying his "insult, in a scholarly atmosphere, to the president of a country with ... a recorded history of 7,000 years of civilization and culture is deeply shameful."

They invited Bollinger to Iran, adding, "You can be assured that Iranians are very polite and hospitable toward their guests."

Ahmadinejad, at the United Nations in New York Tuesday to address the General Assembly, was asked about his reaction to the confrontation at Columbia.

"I think the meeting at the university was sufficiently loud enough to speak for itself. I'm an academic myself," he said in Farsi, which was translated by the U.N. "I think the authorities and officials of the university should practice a little more listening to other points of view and listen to things they don't like to hear."

Ahmadinejad's popularity at home has been suffering, with many Iranians blaming him for failing to fix the faltering economy and for heightening the confrontation with the West with his inflammatory rhetoric.

But in the eyes of many Iranian critics and supporters alike, Ahmadinejad looked like the victim. He complained about Bollinger's "insults" and "unfriendly treatment" but kept a measured tone throughout the discussion.

"Our president appeared as a gentleman. He remained polite against those who could not remain polite," said Ahmad Masoudi, a customer at a grocery store who had watched state TV's recorded version of the event, including Bollinger's remarks. Iranian Farsi channels did not air the event live.

Another customer in the store, Rasoul Qaresi, said Bollinger showed that even Americans "in a cultural position act like cowboys and nothing more."

Others thought Bollinger's words were unseemly for an academic setting. Tehran nurse Mahmoud Rouhi said the president was treated "like a suspect."

"I don't know why he stayed there and didn't leave," Rouhi said.

In their letter, the university chancellors asked Bollinger to provide responses to 10 questions ranging from: "Why did the U.S. support the bloodthirsty dictator Saddam Hussein" during the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war, to "Why has the U.S. military failed to find al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, even with all its advanced equipment?"

Ahmadinejad, visiting New York to speak at the U.N. General Assembly, has been greeted by thousands of protesters, many of them from pro-Israeli groups angered by his previous comments calling for the end of Israel and casting doubt on the Holocaust.

At the Columbia speech, Ahmadinejad fell into the same sort of rhetoric, questioning the official version of the Sept. 11 attacks and defending the right to doubt the Holocaust.

Columbia University faced criticism for hosting Ahmadinejad, and Bollinger had sought to fend off calls for a cancellation of the event by promising to take a tough line with the Iranian president.

Iran's state-run radio said Bollinger's comments were "full of insult, which was mostly Zionists' propaganda against Iran."

Ahmadinejad's visit comes at a time of high tensions between Iran and the U.S. The Bush administration has painted Ahmadinejad as a top enemy of the United States, accusing Tehran of providing weapons that have killed U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and of seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

Iran denies the accusations and has stepped up warnings in recent weeks that it would retaliate against Israel and U.S. bases in the region if it comes under attack.

Some critics of Ahmadinejad in Iran warn that U.S. demonizing of the Iranian president has only strengthened his hand and boosted his falling political fortunes.

They make the point that under Iran's complex governing system, the presidency has far less power than the post of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who holds final say in state decisions. Ahmadinejad, they say, keeps influence through his image as standing up to the world's superpower.

The harsh words at Columbia "worked in favor of Ahmadinejad, who in the eye of ordinary people was seen as wronged," said Ahmad Bakhshayesh, a professor of politics in Tehran's Allameh University.

"The protests by Israel supporters against Ahmadinejad outside the university also helped him to appear as a hero for people of the Middle East," he said.

Ahmadinejad's international allies have also taken his side. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who is expecting a visit from Ahmadinejad this week, said he spoke by phone with the Iranian leader on Monday after what he called the "ambush" at Columbia.

"I congratulate him, in the name of the Venezuelan people, before a new aggression of the U.S. empire," Chavez said.

Ahmadinejad's rude reception has only increased his clout at home.

Whether you like him or not, Ahmadinejad has done was a good political move. Coming to an "enemy" country then speaking at a university... (seen as a friendly gesture)

then getting a rude reception by the people of the "enemy" country while acting polite. (makes USA look bad)

Would an American official visit an "enemy" country and act polite?

Well his equivalent is Bush (nominally). And no Bush would never do that. But the way they do things is to have the Secretary of State visit places. And yes, Condeliza Rice does exactly that sort of thing. I don't know if she's been treated rudely (probably has), but in her "polite" way she makes enough threats and says enough stupid things... The trouble is that her position, despite it's real power in the US, simply doesn't have the same kudos that a president level position has so we can't look at it the same way. :(

Ozoneocean said:

>


While I agree with a lot of what you said, I cant let this one go by. "Says dumb things about" and "executes" are two different words. They mean very different things. They DO execute homosexuals in iran. I'm happy to call the Iranians my enemy. I am opposed to them. I hope their fortunes dwindle while mine increase. I hope everyone forgets their names and their monuments are buried in sand.

Or, even better, I hope they just decide to be nicer.

And yes, I hope you all do too. Think about it - your monuments could also end up buried in sand.

"Says dumb things about" and "executes" are two different words. They mean very different things. They DO execute homosexuals in iran. I'm happy to call the Iranians my enemy.

Just because they do their own thing over there, it is justified to make them the "enemy"?

Well... is USA such a righteous country to have the authority to do such a thing? Who gave the USA the authority to do these things?

And before pressing other nations about human rights, what about the USA's own human rights record?

Executing people that you think are homosexuals is "doing your own thing"?

Actually, no. It's evil.

And calling it "doing your own thing" is horrid. You should be ashamed.

Kyupol, for some reason you think that when I say that the Iranians are my enemy I am somehow speaking for the US government. I must correct you there - Actually, I am not the US government. In fact, I think that you are the first person to ever make that mistake!

I am and was speaking for myself only.

And yes, I live in a country that - to use one example - now authorizes torture. In fact, worse than that, my country authorizes torture against people that it knows are innocent. I can't imagine anything more evil than using torture against a helpless prisoner.

But I do not understand why the existence of one evil should somehow prevent me from pointing out other evils. As it happens, I focus my political efforts on making changes here in the US, not in Iran. As a US Citizen, I consider the actions of the US government to be more my responsibility.

And just as I have a responsibility to make my government change - for instance, to stop torturing people - so the Iranian people have a responsibility for their government - in this case, to stop the torture and execution of homosexuals. I understand that while I am impatient with them to do better, they are impatient with me to do better. Fair enough.

Having said all of that, it is very clear to me - in a very personal way - that the Iranian govt - as a matter of policy - wants me, me personally - to die. So that makes us ENEMIES.

Sorry, I cant think of another word for that. They'd kill me if they could. They ARE my enemy - and they started it, BTW. I think that's kind of just obviously true, isn't it? Is there another word I should use for people who want to kill me?

Actually, plenty of Iranians live very happily here in the US. Gay ones, too. I think they are obviously safer here than I would be in Iran. I mean, just sayin.

Now, disagree with me all you want - but please don't call the executions of innocent people "doing their own thing" - by saying so, you demean the lives and the deaths of the innocents that the Iranians have tortured and slain.

When the US tortures people, are we just "doing our own thing?" And so no one gets to comment on it?

That's the logic of what you said - but honestly, I don't think you really meant it.

Actually... I was just listening to the BBC world service and they were reading out the e-mails that listeners had sent in in response to Ahmadinejad's reception at the university. Most of the people were shocked and dismayed at his treatment, even Iranians who oppose him. Among the people who were critical was one man writing in response to Ahmadinejad's suggestion that "they don't have homosexuality in Iran in the same way as in the west". The man said that was ridiculous, he said that as a homosexual man in Iran they live exactly the same way they do in the west...

So, whether he was speaking as an individual or as a representative of the Iranian homosexual community, I don't know. There's a bit of info on the application of the law at Wikipedia [en.wikipedia.org]. This from Wiki: "there are records of at least 107 executions with charges related to homosexuality between 1979 and 1990."
But then they're very supportive of transgendered people and will even provide grants of operations. In terms of countries that have harsh laws on homosexuality here's a good map [en.wikipedia.org] at Wiki. Looks like Iran isn't the only one.

Interestingly, it looks like Iraq under the occupation is a worse place to be homosexual, with Militia death squads applying there own forms of law...

Ok, clearly Im hijacking this thread with my own little rants and sub-topics, so I'll finish up and get out.

But I have to object - first of all, I dont see why the fact that there are 4 or 5 other nations that have the death penalty for homosexuality makes any difference at all. Not a whit. It's still evil. It's evil no matter how many join in. Your logic eludes me totally.

Also, as far as the Iranian governments treatment of transexuals - try not to be duped. It is true, the Iranian government sponsors sexual reassignment surgery for transexuals - which sounds very enlightened, but the details get nasty. First of all, they *require* reassignment surgery for transexuals. Always beware of surgery that the government requires you to have (remember, without the surgery, a trans person is "just a homosexual" and subject to torture and death)

The truth is, some transgendered people have been able to take advantage of this government program, but the purpose of it is not to help trans folks - its to get rid of gay people. Gay men in particular are under increasing pressure in iran to get classified as transexuals and be surgically altered so as to "cure" them.

Enforced sex-reassigment surgery - whether on transexuals or homosexuals - is a monstrous and very terrible practice. I encourage you not to wink at it.

This trick of pretending to embrace trans people as a way of attacking gay people is an old trick of the very far Right. Pat Robertson, an evangelical leader here in America, has even been known to say kind things about trans folks while denouncing the evils of gay people. I can tell you that trans people in America have not, in general, been fooled by this into thinking that Pat Robertson is their friend.

As for our "treatment" of Ahmadinejad - well, it's true - The Iranians are very big on hospitality, and we Americans not so much. Hospitality is a good virtue and they totally win that one. But then, the US govt doesnt torture and execute people for being homosexual, so I'll take that trade, thanks.

I wasn't bringing up those points in opposition to what you had said, just to illustrate that it's a more complex situation than simply hurting gay people in Iran. And the US did indeed torture members of its gay population in the recent past, just like a lot of Western countries. Gay people might be imprisoned, or committed to psychiatric facilities where they'd undergo procedures like electro shock therapy in order to "cure" them, not to mention "brainwashing".

I don't support the fact that gay people have had a tough time in Iran, with a few even being executed (107 while a horrible number, would represent a very small amount of the total homosexual population, but I don't know how many have died after 1990), but while that is a horrible thing it's merely the ultimate penalty. Gay people have it just as harsh or worse in places with no death penalty for them. Anecdotally I've heard horrible things from places like Jamaica, to Argentina, to China... etc.

As a point of personal principal, it's a fair point on which to oppose the Iranian administration. Not Iranians though, since that group logically includes the homosexual population, those that support them and those who are unconnected to their persecution altogether.

Iran mistreats gays?

The max sentence for sex outside of marriage is death.

So... yeah, I'm not going to get all up in arms over their mistreatment of gays, when they're so prudish that they punish fornication with death. One thing at a time, you know?

Clearly this is a hijack of this thread. Maybe we can agree that there are many things we find heinous about Iran, much like there in many countries we are not currently rattling sabres with.

The main point of this thread I believe is not to argue another countries merit, but to insist we act in accordance with our creed, and frnkly basic common sense.

Dialouge and peace cannot actually happen until we are talking. Grandstanding and making bold moralistic claims of intolerance do nothing to foment peace and understanding, especially since morals are so subjective.

Perhaps the best way to help gays and other oppressed people in these countries is to make peace with places like Iran and let our ideals of freedom and basic human dignity flow slowly, peacefully and unobtrusively into other countries. After all western culture thrives worldwide with no armed insurrection to force it, and i might remind some of us that we only recently came to this enlightened era for sexual freedom in America, so things often move slow with respect to human rights.

Make no mistake, persecution or just plain discrimination turns my stomach and offends all I believe we stand for as Americans, but thwarting efforts at peace to indulge my sense of outrage is selfish at best and dangerous at worst.

1) Ahmadinejad is about as interesting or important as a very scary cartoon character. Visiting the US is a publicity stunt on his part (that's one thing he's very good at), and he would've only used it to offend as many people as possible.

2) Not allowing him to speak makes him look like he actually has something interesting, nay, dangerous to say. Best thing they could've done for him. Now he won't have to make himself look like an idiot and can play the victim instead. This is exactly why censorship is usually counterproductive, by the way.

3) If you think the Bush administration doesn't love this guy, you're kidding yourself. He's like... Bizarro Dubyah.

spacehamster
1) Ahmadinejad is about as interesting or important as a very scary cartoon character. Visiting the US is a publicity stunt on his part (that's one thing he's very good at), and he would've only used it to offend as many people as possible.

Well, he visited, and he didn't use it to offend as many people as possible. He did say some dumb things, no doubt, but he could have offended more.

2) Not allowing him to speak makes him look like he actually has something interesting, nay, dangerous to say. Best thing they could've done for him. Now he won't have to make himself look like an idiot and can play the victim instead. This is exactly why censorship is usually counterproductive, by the way.

You're totally right. Letting him speak gave people the opportunity to see how silly he can be. Unfortunately, we also displayed our own silliness -- here, lets invite you to speak, and then attack you. That's cheap and America can be a gracious host and stand by its principles. Its called class.

3) If you think the Bush administration doesn't love this guy, you're kidding yourself. He's like... Bizarro Dubyah.

You're making the assumption that he loves what stares back at him in the mirror. There's a difference between loving yourself and thinking you're the only person that matters.

In short, Bush would hate his twin because that would mean he'd be sharing everything by half.

However, you don't have to love someone to find someone useful, or to use what they got to your own advantage. With that rephrasing, I'm sure we're in complete agreement.

I'm going to have to ruin things for you again mapaghimagsik, because I not only totally agree with everything in your last post there, I find the final few points extremely insightful and thinking along lines I myself hadn't thought before.

Unfortunately I haven't got anything to add to the debate with this post... Except endorsement.

...enlightened era for sexual freedom in America

Very true. Broken families, STDs, and the objectification of ALL humans (Men = walking wallets, Women = sex object, Child = burden) are such a wonderful things...

kyupol

...enlightened era for sexual freedom in America

Very true. Broken families, STDs, and the objectification of ALL humans (Men = walking wallets, Women = sex object, Child = burden) are such a wonderful things...

Jeez, way to jump all over me :P

I just meant that phrase in terms of our discussion with respects to how gays are treated today in America.

Coming out isn't met with as furious a codemnation anymore. Ask an older gay freind how bad it used to be. I was just saying, perhaps with an unfortunate choice of words, that we don't draw and quarter homosexuals anymore. I was pointing out that as outraged as we are about what is happening to gay folks now in Iran, we weren't much better until only very recently, and I would argue there's is still a ways to go until they are not only safe from persecution, but truly equal members of society.

kyupol

...enlightened era for sexual freedom in America

Very true. Broken families, STDs, and the objectification of ALL humans (Men = walking wallets, Women = sex object, Child = burden) are such a wonderful things...

How are those things new?

TnTComic

kyupol

...enlightened era for sexual freedom in America

Very true. Broken families, STDs, and the objectification of ALL humans (Men = walking wallets, Women = sex object, Child = burden) are such a wonderful things...

How are those things new?

I think the point now being discussed in the spinoff thread is that music videos are the culprit.

Lets burn our Beatle records...I mean really, that John Lennon was a blasphemer!!

mapaghimagsik
However, you don't have to love someone to find someone useful, or to use what they got to your own advantage. With that rephrasing, I'm sure we're in complete agreement.

Pretty much, yeah. Bush needs a cartoon bad guy in his world.

spacehamster
3) If you think the Bush administration doesn't love this guy, you're kidding yourself. He's like... Bizarro Dubyah.

In fact you will find a lot of moralistic, zealous leaders are cut from the same cloth. When the hunt for Bin Laden began, one of my polysci proffs used to quip that the Osama was tough on crime and fiercly antidrugs, wanted more respect for family, disapproved of gays and actively denied them rights, thought government should not suppress open displays of religion, sought unlimited power to monitor ordinary citizens, and still had a healthy distrust for the russians leftover from the cold war...

In short they would make great neocons and republicans!!!

ozoneocean
I'm going to have to ruin things for you again mapaghimagsik, because I not only totally agree with everything in your last post there, I find the final few points extremely insightful and thinking along lines I myself hadn't thought before.

Unfortunately I haven't got anything to add to the debate with this post... Except endorsement.

Damnit! This vehement agreeing shall not stand!