President Ahmadinejad Goes to Columbia

On Monday, September 24, 2007 President Mahmoud Ahadinejad was invited to speak at Columbia University. This invitation was highly controversial and there were tons of protesters outside of the building the day he arrived. Many people, especially those of the Jewish faith, were against the Iranian President's coming because he has publically stated that he would bomb and destroy Israel if he gets a nuclear weapon. This was actually one of the questions that was brought up in the question and answer session. Although the Ahadinejad beat around the bush, the answer was basically yes. Also, during his speech he said that " In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country. We don't have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have it." These statements led to laughing and also tons of booing from the audience. Another issue in Ahadinejad's visit was that he was not allowed to put a wreath on Ground Zero because the government said that he could not.
I believe that the president should not have talked at Columbia University because I do not think he should even have the right to. President Ahadinejad, in my opinion, only wanted to speak at Columbia University to protect his own back. In almost every single one of his answers to the questions he covered himself up or beat around the bush to make himself look better. This was especially shown when he was asked about bombing Israel; he never said the word yes, but every statement that he made seemed to be pointing to yes. This president has said many times that he would bomb Israel, one of our allies. Also, the statement that he made about homosexuals is completely ridiculous because everyone knows that he killed people who he found out were homosexual. This president had no right to spread his message to the students and others a Columbia because of what he does and has done. To some it may be important, but to me it seems as if we are helping him look better to others.

Transcripts of Speech: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401042.html

Presidential Candidates and the Jena Six

We learned in class yesterday, September 20th, about the Jena Six. The incidents started at the end of last school year when African-American students sat under a “white” tree, after these students asked and received permission from the school administration in Jena, LA. However, the next day there were three nooses in the school colors hanging on the tree. The white students who did this, as the school called it, "prank" only were suspended for 2 days. Later on, white students at a party beat up one African-American student; no charges were filed. Soon after, three African-American students were held up at a convenience store. When the boys took the weapon away, the cops came and put the boys in jail saying that they had stolen a firearm; the boys who held them up did not get in trouble at all. Later that day, six of the African-American students beat up the "ring-leader" of all these events. The boy only had a few cuts on his face and was out of the hospital in a few hours. This boy also went to a party that evening, which shows that he was fine. However, the six boys were arrested and the "ring-leader," the boy who was beaten up was given 22 years in prison because he was tried as an adult. However, the courts overturned the sentence and he was tried as a minor, he is only sixteen.
Yesterday, there were thousands of protestors at the courthouse who were protesting the injustice of this case. However, most of the presidential hopefuls have not made a stand about the case. Barack Obama said,” We shouldn't have to have a national rally for people to recognize the injustice of what's been happening down there." Then he proceeded to talk about how President Bush is failing at the Justice Department, but he never really talked about the incidents and what he feels. Hillary Clinton has talked about how she was "troubled" and "worried" about the case, but still talked very little about the case to try to help her campaign. I feel that this issue needs to be talked about, especially among the political candidates, because in my opinion it is going to be one of the most important court cases of my generation. The presidential candidates, especially Clinton and Obama, need support from African-American voters and this would be a moment for them to break the ice and show how they will be as president. Instead of attacking President Bush and saying that they are "worried," the candidates should take a stand and say how unjust this whole situation really is. What do you think?

Here is the LA Times article on the political candidates and the Jena Six: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-race21sep21,1,5373123.story

Moveon.org's Attack Against General Petraeus

On Monday the Army General, David Petraeus, testified before two House committees on the Iraq War situation and what will happen next. However, before this speech was even made moveon.org, the "liberal anti-war group" bought an ad in the New York Times bashing General Petraeus. The full-page advertisement said, "General Petraeus or General Betray Us? Cooking the Books for the White House." An interesting fact to note though is that the New York Times made it much easier for this advertisement to bought and printed. It has been reported that moveone.org paid $65,000 for the ad, which may seem to be a hefty price. However, the usual price for a full-page ad in the New York Times is actually $181,692. So, why the discounted rate? This is exactly what the New York Post asked and now I am asking.

The response that the New York Post got from the New York Times was an answer that showed a lack of responsibility:

"Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis denied the rate charged indicated a political bias and said it was the paper's policy not to disclose the rate paid by any advertiser. 'We do not distinguish the advertising rates based on the political content of the ad,' Mathis told Reuters. 'The advertising folks did not see the content of the ad before the rate was quoted," she said, adding that there were over 30 different categories of ads with varying rates.' Mathis confirmed the open rate for an ad of that size and type was around $181,000. Among reasons for lower rates are advertisers buying in bulk or taking a standby rate, she said. 'There are many instances when we have published opinion advertisements that run counter to the stance we take on our own editorial pages,' she said" (NYT, 9/13/07).

Still, why should they have been discounted? I believe that website should have been charged more for their advertisement because of the negative commentary that they had. I'm not going to say whether I disagree or agree with the ad because that is not the point. The point is that the New York Times should have not made the moveon.org $116,000 cheaper than it should have been. I feel that, although they claim that the advertising people did not see the ad before the quote, moveon.org was let off easily. I feel that, in a way, the New York Times tainted their credibility with this advertisement because it was so negative and harsh, plus that they made the ad easy to make. It would be interesting to see who else gets huge discounts on ads, or if this is done all the time. What do you think of the New York Times?

New York Times Article on the advertisement: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-usa-politics-media.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The actual ad: http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html

~Rachael Gordon <3