Thankfully, it isn't.  Because here's what the New York Times got wrong in July of 2001, in an op-ed titled "The Declining Terrorist Threat" (my emphasis):

"Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.
"None of these beliefs are based in fact. While many crimes are committed against Americans abroad (as at home), politically inspired terrorism, as opposed to more ordinary criminality motivated by simple greed, is not as common as most people may think....
"The greatest risk is clear: if you are drilling for oil in Colombia -- or in nations like Ecuador, Nigeria or Indonesia -- you should take appropriate precautions; otherwise Americans have little to fear.
"Although high-profile incidents have fostered the perception that terrorism is becoming more lethal, the numbers say otherwise, and early signs suggest that the decade beginning in 2000 will continue the downward trend. A major reason for the decline is the current reluctance of countries like Iraq, Syria and Libya, which once eagerly backed terrorist groups, to provide safe havens, funding and training...."

Via Atlas Shrugs.

I remind you - this was in July of 2001.  No wonder readership is plummeting...

...or, you know, completely acceptable, depending on who you're talking about.

Fair game for Gen. Petraeus, but not for Chelsea Clinton.

No liberal bias?

The Anchoress remembers the important anniversary.

Here is what I wrote last year.

...clearly, I haven't blogged.  Anything.

BUT...that doesn't mean I haven't been paying attention to what's been going on.  I've naturally paid close attention to the campaigns, but there have been some items, political and otherwise, which have caught my eye in the past few months:

1) Rush to name storms may be costing you money.  Back at the end of November, when the hurricane season came and went with no Katrina-like damage to the U.S. (and another overestimation from forecasters), this article that ran in the Houston Chronicle explained the financial significance to naming storms:

"'(Hurricane forecasters) seem to be naming storms a lot more than they used to,' said (former hurricane center director Neil) Frank, who directed the hurricane center from 1974 to 1987 and is now chief meteorologist for KHOU-TV. 'This year, I would put at least four storms in a very questionable category, and maybe even six.'

(note: 14 storms were named in 2007)

"Most of the storms in question briefly had tropical storm-force winds of at least 39 mph. But their central pressure — another measure of intensity — suggested they actually remained depressions or were non-tropical systems.

"Any inconsistencies in the naming of tropical storms and hurricanes have significance far beyond semantics.

"The number of a season's named storms forms the foundation of historical records used to determine trends in hurricane activity. Insurance companies use these trends to set homeowners' rates. And such information is vital to scientists trying to determine whether global warming has had a measurable impact on hurricane activity."

So, more than 40% of named storms in 2007, according to a former hurricane center director, were "questionable" hurricanes, at best.  And predictions still fell short.  With insurance companies using this information to set homeowners' rates, wouldn't it behoove meteorologists to get it right?  This exaggeration of data doesn't convince skeptics that global warming isn't a crock.  This proves to me that science is not the be-all-and-end-all liberals want you to believe it is.  Scientists can manipulate data for their own means, and the global warming crowd is the best at it.  Bet you didn't know, during this time of unaffordable housing, that they're partly to blame for the current crisis.

2) The Jena Six. The Weekly Standard analyzes why this case never materialized into the 60s-throwback case it was supposed to be.  Al Sharpton claimed "Jena 6" was all over the country.  Jesse Jackson blasted Barack Obama for not publicizing the case more, reportedly commenting that he was "acting like he's white" and comparing the event to Selma, Alabama, a focal point for marches during the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Students trying to be relevant sported "Free The Jena Six" t-shirts like the one below:

  

USA Today glorified the protests surrounding the arrest of Mychal Bell, headlining the "throngs" of protestors who "demand(ed) justice for (the) Jena 6."  Longing for a 60s-style revolution, the reporter paints a picture of the protest this way:

"At times, the rally seemed like a festival. Demonstrators brought coolers and food. Some sold 'Free the Jena 6' T-shirts. They filled two main roads, holding up signs proclaiming, 'Enough Is Enough.'"

Two of the Jena 6 even found time to parlay their crime into newfound fame by presenting at BET's Hip-Hop awards.

Despite all this initial commotion, The Weekly Standard notes the lack of any sustained momentum:

"A call for African-American students to stay home from school on October 1 as a show of solidarity with the Jena Six fizzled. A 'National Black Out Day' scheduled for November 2, on which African Americans were supposed to keep the Jena Six momentum going via a nationwide spending boycott, attracted little noticeable response and almost no press coverage. An anti-hate crimes rally on November 3 in Charleston, West Virginia, drew only a few hundred demonstrators (Sharpton did not make a promised appearance), even though the triggering incident in West Virginia--involving a black woman allegedly kidnapped, beaten, and sexually assaulted by six whites--smacked far more of interracial wrongdoing than anything in Jena. Only about 5,000 people showed up on November 16 for a March Against Hate Crimes at the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., despite a relentless nationwide publicity campaign by the same bloggers and radio hosts who had urged African Americans to flock to Jena in September. Even Jesse Jackson, who had accused black Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama of 'acting like he's white' for failing to condemn the Jena Six prosecution sufficiently, quietly disappeared from the scene in the late fall."

So, what happened?

Simple.  The details of the case came to light.

Via Right Wing News:

"In reality, the brutal assault began when one of the Jena 6 struck Barker from behind, knocking him unconscious. As Barker lay on the ground, the 6 of them kicked and stomped him until they were pulled off of his prone body. One of the eyewitnesses even said that they 'slammed (Barker's) head on the concrete beam."'

"It's also worth noting that according to (local pastor) Eddie Thompson, 'Justin Barker, the white student attacked, was not the first white student targeted by these black students. Others had been informed they were going to be beaten, but stayed away from school and out of sight until they felt safe.'

"So, we're not talking about victims of circumstance here, we're talking about thugs who would be a danger to other students in the school if they had not been arrested.

"Moreover, although Barker's injuries have been portrayed as slight because he left the hospital the same night of the beating, he had $14,000 in medical bills, blood clots in his eye and left the hospital even though he was 'advised to remain hospitalized.'"

I ask: What self-respecting black person would want to be involved in this latest installment of the civil rights movement?

Apparently, not enough to make it news anymore.  And that's a good thing.

Though the kids themselves are still trying to make news: Bryant Purvis (of BET fame) was just charged with assault for beating up another kid, this time outside of Dallas, where he now lives.

Fantastic.

3) Japanese Lessons, Lost?  The brilliant Andrew Bostom begins this piece by explaining the reform process in Japan after its defeat in WWII, with "stern American guidance" (emphasis mine):

"Central to this process (of reform) was a complete delegitimization and disenfranchisement of Japan’s religio-political state religion, post Meiji Restoration (1868) Shintoism. These wrenching reforms of Japanese Shintoism included eliminating Shinto State militarism, and its indoctrination within Japanese schools, concurrent with the guarantee of true religious freedom—including the practice of Shintoism as a private, de-militarized, and de-politicized personal faith—under the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers...primarily, General Douglas MacArthur."

Important to this analysis of post-WWII Japan is not that the Shinto religion itself is dangerous; rather, when intertwined with government resulting in a religio-political state, Shintoism leads to danger.  Essential to the reformation process was the guarantee of the private practice of Shintoism.  Success was quantifiable only a few years later, once Shintoism was removed from government.

Where do you think Bostom is going with this?  Here's his dead-on thesis:

"Sixty years later the lessons from the era of Japanese reconstruction have been ignored entirely following the US-led military interventions in Afghanistan, now under the post-Taliban Karzai regime, and Iraq, after the toppling of Saddam Hussein. Indeed the post-World War II paradigm of neutralizing Japan’s bellicose, religio-political creed of Shintoism, has been turned on its head with regard to Islam, and the theocratic Islamic legal code, Shari’a—imbued with jihad, and completely antithetical to modern human rights constructs."

Read the rest of the analysis here.

4) Adopt Sharia Law in Britain, Says the Archbishop of Canterbury.  The Telegraph provides the unbelievable details of Dr. Rowan Williams' speech:

"The Archbishop provoked the row by saying Britain had to 'face up to the fact' that some citizens did not relate to this country's legal system and argued that officially sanctioning sharia law would improve community relations.

"He said there was an argument that aspects of sharia law, such as those involving divorce, financial transactions and the settling of disputes, could be accommodated with British legislation.

"Speaking before a speech on the issue - delivered last night - Dr Williams said: 'Nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that has sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states.

"'But there are ways of looking at marital disputes, for example, which provide an alternative to divorce courts as we understand them....
"...Dr Williams said the argument that 'there's one law for everybody' was 'a bit of a danger' and called for 'a constructive accommodation' with aspects of Muslim law...
"...Dr Williams appeared to suggest that sharia law should be recognised as an officially sanctioned alternative to British law in areas such as marriage, divorce and inheritance."

I would hope that I would not have to describe the dangers of allowing sharia to creep into Britain.  Not that it hasn't already happened anyway. 

But I'll let Melanie Phillips do the talking:

"...One law for all is the very basis of legal and social justice and is the glue that binds a society together. Law is the expression of a society’s cultural identity. If there is no one law, there is no one national identity and therefore no society but instead a set of warring fiefdoms with their own separate jurisdictions. To enable people to chop and choose between two jurisdictions would destroy the unitary nature of British society and fragment the country....
"...his proposal would also mean that Britain would simply abandon its female Muslim citizens whose parlous position in respect of forced marriages, honour killings and all the other horrors that follow from their second-class religious status would be institutionalised by giving sharia law official recognition. Dr Williams says such women should still retain the right of appeal to the English courts if their human rights were breached under sharia. What absurdity is this? It is the cultural assumptions which flow from sharia which lead to the oppression of Muslim women. How is the right of appeal to human rights law going to help women who are beaten and killed by men who do it in the name of religion? In order to protect our female Muslim citizens, we need to remove from them the yoke of sharia law, not institutionalise it with the seal of official approval...."

More reaction within England here.  Will human rights and feminist groups in the United States speak out?  Will the President?


I'd love to hear your thoughts on all these issues - I haven't even touched on the election yet!  At this point, I would not vote for McCain, he'd have to choose a very strong running mate to consider getting my vote.  His CPAC speech did nothing to reassure conservatives, so I don't think he's off to a very good start.  We can't forget - he wanted to be John Kerry's running mate in 2004.  And now, four years later, he's practically the Republican nominee for President?

I'll attempt to post much more in the coming weeks and months.  Thanks!

DO send a message of thanks to our troops stationed around the world.  (via Monica Crowley)

DON'T buy into multicultural mourning like they are in Seattle.  (via Tammy Bruce)

I listed my Top 10 Columnists a few months back, but would have to rethink my list now that I've encountered someone I've only glossed over in the past.

That's Dinesh D'Souza - author of What's So Great About America, one of the most important books I've read in some time.  It was published back in 2002 (I think) but is increasingly relevant today, and vital to read before the election next year.

In the preface, D'Souza acknowledges that we need to understand the "nature of the enemy", an observation most pundits from both the left and the right have made.  D'Souza, however, goes deeper.  "What is needed," he says, "is an understanding of the moral basis of Western civilization, of what makes the American experiment historically unique, and of what makes American life as it is lived today (emphasis his) the best life that our world has to offer.  Only then can we know what is at stake in this war and what we possess that is worth fighting for."

Political analysts, presidential candidates, and amateur bloggers alike all tell us that we need to "understand" our enemy in order to 1) defeat them, or 2) coexist with them.  But who has said that we need to understand what America is all about before we even think of trying to understand the culture and religion of Islamic nations?

So the question then becomes - What is so great about America?

Surprisingly enough, to whom does D'Souza turn to for an accurate characterization of America?  Naturally - to those who hate us.

First, he turns to the European (or, more specifically, the French) model of anti-Americanism: "Their anti-Americanism is based on a strong belief in French cultural superiority combined with a fear that their great culture is being dissolved in the global marketplace."  This argument is a little weak in that the French culture itself proves that it is not superior to American culture in that it cannot extend its influence the way the American culture can, and has.  However, this does not mean the culture itself is not preserving.

The second model of anti-Americanism D'Souza points out is called the "Asian school": "America and the West have solved the economic problem but they have not solved the cultural problem."  What true conservative could actually refute this school of thought?  D'Souza correctly points out why, though, this argument, too, crumbles under criticism: "The 'Asian values' paradigm is often viewed as an excuse for dictatorship.  Admittedly it serves the interest of Asian despots to portray democracy as a debauched system of government, so that they can justify keeping political power in their own hands."  Which they do.

The last model is, predictably, the Islamic model.  D'Souza delves into the Islamic critique of Western society beneath the obvious argument against U.S. foreign policy.  D'Souza even found that "the Islamic critique, at its best, shows a deep understanding of America's principles - which is more than one can say about the American understanding of Islamic principles."  Ouch.  He's right.

Here, though, is the crux of the Islamic argument: "The Islamic argument is that the West is based on principles that are radically different from those of traditional societies.  In this view, America is a subversive idea that, if admitted into a society, will produce tremendous and uncontrollable social upheaval.  It will eliminate the religious basis for society, it will undermine traditional hierarchies, it will displace cherished values, and it will produce a society unrecognizable from the one it destroyed.  As bin Laden himself put it, Islam is facing the greatest threat to its survival since the days of the prophet Muhammad."

This - this is why they hate us.

And that's just Chapter 1! 

D'Souza goes on to explain the benefits of colonialism - how often do you hear that argument made?  The main point of Chapter 2 is that if Western colonialism is such a bad thing, why is most of the world imitating Western behavior?  To support this argument, he bashes the popular teachings of multiculturalism in America's schools and universities as reducing America to the most racist, xenophobic place on the planet and praising all other cultures as at least on par with and often superior to that of America.  Of course, America is the most successful country in the history of the world at exporting its culture and ideas largely WITHOUT conquering other nations.  But you don't hear that from the multiculturalists.

Chapter 3 talks about the idea of becoming "American", and, on this point, D'Souza seems to stray from the typical conservative pundit's thoughts.  Unlike those on the right, D'Souza does not fear the Balkanization of America: "Consider a typical Indian woman at JFK airport.  To look at her - the sari, the beads, the dot on her forehead, and so on - she seems utterly out of place in a modern, Western civilization.  But then look at her four-year-old son.  The little fellow is running around, he is making a big noise, he is biting people - in short, he has been thoroughly Americanized.  However fiercely the new immigrant holds onto the native culture, I do not believe that he can prevent his children from being assimilated."

Chapter 4 addresses Black America and the troubling tendency towards an entitlement belief which is not there.  Of course, it is important to recognize that Blacks did not always have equal rights in this country - "but now they have it, and that is all that they are entitled to."  He describes in detail the "genetic view" and the "liberal view" that attempt to explain why Blacks are lagging behind Whites and many immigrant groups in building economic and intellectual skills.  He debunks both theories, and essentially tells Blacks to "man up" and stop trying to manufacture representation around arguments that don't hold water.

Chapter 5 recounts the counterculture revolution of the 1960s and how its effects linger through today, passed on to young people through the schools and their parents.  Though there is no denying the power of the individual, the problem arises when the individual believes he can do anything he wants, without consequence.  This attitude contributes to the moral decay of society, when all ideas are equal, no one idea is better than another, and nothing is wrong.  With this attitude, degradation is sure to follow - and it has.

In short, (after a long entry) I have just become a big fan of Dinesh D'Souza and look forward to reading more of what he has to offer.  I highly recommend this important book!

"Bad news is better news."

This seems to be the motto our mainstream media follows when deciding what stories to report as "news" on its nightly broadcasts and websites.

But would you ever think this motto would extend to the sports media?

Think for a minute.  When was the last positive story you heard of an athlete reaching out to a family in need, or giving back to his community?

Probably not for a while.

That's because the media is too busy following the juicy stories to report on anything positive.  Just look at the major sports and the athletes you know - and, more importantly, why you know them.

Baseball - Barry Bonds is the most obvious example.  His story extended to programs like Bill O'Reilly's radio show, blurring the line between hard news and entertainment.  Despite the steroid scandal rocking the baseball world and questioning the integrity of the game, the sport doesn't seem to be rampant with hardcore criminal activity...you know, like basketball.

Whether it be SI wonderboy Sebastian Telfair, Celtics swingman Tony Allen, or superstars Allen Iverson, Jason Kidd, and Kobe Bryant, it seems that everyone in the NBA in one way or another has been in trouble with the law.  Telfair was caught twice in suspicious possession of a loaded handgun - one of those times being at Boston's Logan AIrport.  Tony Allen served jail time (albeit brief) for his participation in a fight outside a Chicago nightclub - in which someone got shot.  Iverson has been involved in various criminal activities - ranging from marijuana possession and public urination, to threatening to kill his cousin after a domestic dispute.  Jason Kidd's domestic disputes made front page news in 2001 when his wife Joumana went public - the couple has since divorced.

And we all know Kobe Bryant's troubles.

But basketball pales in comparison to football.

Whether it be Tank Johnson, Ricky Williams, Travis Henry, Ray Lewis, Michael Vick, or seemingly the entire Cincinnati Bengals, one player or another always is in serious trouble with the law.  Yet, nobody really ever stops playing football.

Even the more international sports, like tennis, are finally getting some U.S. media attention, following recent scandals. For starters, German star Tommy Haas may have been poisoned before a Davis Cup match.  Also,  Russian #1 Nikolay Davydenko apparently has been throwing matches.  But don't forget about one of the sport's most recognizable atheletes, Swiss sensation Martina Hingis, who has been accused of testing positive for cocaine at Wimbledon this past summer - an allegation she vehemently denies - though, coincidentally, she has retired from the sport.

But let's return to football for a moment - and return to the initial question I posed: Where Are the Good Athletes?

Well, there's at least one Good Athlete in football.  And I found his story buried beneath the mainstream media.  The athlete's name is Braylon Edwards.

Why Braylon Edwards is a hero (quoted at length, hopefully to help distinguish his story):

“'Every time Braylon Edwards caught the ball, I yelled and screamed,' Tara Douglas said Sunday, the first time she’s smiled since her 15-year-old baby boy, Denzel, died. 'I knew he was doing it for my baby.'

"Braylon Edwards isn’t a hero today because he caught two -- more -- touchdown passes Sunday at the Edward Jones Dome. He isn’t a hero today because he caught eight passes, each one of them better than the next, against the St. Louis Rams. He isn’t even a hero today because he made play after superb play to lead the Browns back from a 14-0 first-quarter deficit and to a 27-20 win, the first time Cleveland fans can say winning and streak in the same sentence since 2003.

"He is a hero today because for the first time since Friday morning, Tara, a woman you’ve probably never heard of, yelled and screamed in joy even though her heart still felt like it had been trampled by a Ted Washington cleat.

"Tara talked to Denzel for the last time Friday morning. The Lakewood High School underclassman died after his body rejected a heart transplant that was 18 months old.

"But he died with a piece of Braylon Edwards with him, and him, probably for a long time, with Edwards.

"Denzel died with his No. 17 autographed Braylon Edwards’ jersey and one of the game balls from the star receiver’s three-touchdown game against Miami.

"On his day off, during his week off from the NFL, Edwards went to the hospital to meet a young man he didn’t know.

"All that he knew was Denzel Douglas was in pain. He could tell by the tubes in his mouth, but not by the twinkle in his eye.

“'Denzel couldn’t believe Braylon was standing in front of him in his hospital bed,' Tara said Sunday. 'That made his day.'

"As it turned out, it was one of his last.

"Denzel Douglas had a profound effect on Edwards. The wide receiver told a Browns employee who helped arrange the meeting, 'You didn’t say it would be like this,' even though Edwards was briefed on Douglas’ dire health. It was a meeting that Edwards won’t soon -- if ever -- forget.

"He dedicated his eight-catch, 117-yard, two-touchdown performance Sunday in St. Louis to the 15-year-old he barely knew.

"So Friday, Tara will bury her son. And she’ll bury him in the No. 17 jersey Edwards brought and signed. The football he autographed will be placed in the casket as well."

Oh...and who paid for that funeral?

That's right - Braylon Edwards.

And it doesn't stop there.

This Michigan grad is giving the opportunity of a lifetime to 100 Cleveland high schoolers (yes - and Cleveland kids are raised to hate Michigan football players!) through his Braylon Edwards Foundation.  He has donated $1 million dollars to fund the college educations of 100 Cleveland students - all of whom have to maintain a 2.5 grade point average, participate in at least 15 hours of community service a year, and show a commitment to attending class (no unexcused absences allowed).  For Edwards, with well-rounded citizenship comes rewards.

Hopefully the NFL will begin to promote this budding superstar.  Enough with the Michael Vicks already. 

Let's focus on the true heroes - like Braylon Edwards.

If you don't know, find out.

She won a hotly contested Missouri Senate seat in 2006 versus Republican incumbent Jim Talent.  Admittedly, her campaign was dirty.  She apparently supported commercials of unsubstantiated claims of a wounded Iraqi soldier (or, more accurately, an Army medic) waiting six months to get medical treatment, and wouldn't return phone calls on the matter.  She also supported Amendment 2 (text of Amendment here), which passed in Missouri, and essentially legalized human cloning.

And as a general rule, I don't support Democrats in office, because, naturally, it means one less Republilcan is in office.

Putting all that aside (admittedly difficult to do), one can't help but notice the good she's doing, in particular, on the issue of illegal immigration.

Back in June, she talked with Lou Dobbs and promised to vote no on amnesty - and followed through.

Here is a spokeswoman's explanation for McCaskill's "no" vote:

"[Spokeswoman Adrianne] Marsh said that the flow of illegal immigration could be cut dramatically without legislation if procedures governing legal immigration were streamlined and tougher sanctions against employers were applied.

"'If we really want to make a change, we need to strengthen our borders, crack down on employers and ensure that we have a fully functional legal system,' Marsh said."

Wow.  Spoken like a common-sense American.  But, believe it, or not, there's more.

In September of this year, a Senate panel voted to allow Julie Myers to keep her senior post at the Homeland Security Department. 

What's the problem here?  Well, the appointment has reeked of cronyism from the start.  The Washington Post examined this and other issues back in 2005.  Unfortunately, though, the fears of many in the Senate have since been eliminated.

The fears of everyone, that is, except for Claire McCaskill:

"The only dissent came Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who complained that Myers has not shown enough interest in tracking how many employers are prosecuted for hiring illegal immigrants.

"McCaskill has spent weeks asking the agency to reveal the number of employers who have faced legal action for hiring illegal workers. But Myers has said law enforcement statistics do not break out records that way.

"Late Tuesday night, the agency finally sent McCaskill a list of all 716 people charged with immigration violations in the most recent fiscal year. McCaskill claims the list will show the Bush administration has not seriously pursued employers who break the law.

"'All you have to do is glance at the list and you do not get a good feeling that employers are being held accountable,' McCaskill said."

Myers is still awaiting confirmation.  But Debbie Schlussel reports that McCaskill aims to block that nomination.

"McCaskill, D-Mo., said she was acting because of questions raised about Myers' role in a Halloween contest in which an agency employee wore a racially offensive costume."

So what was the costume?  "A black-and-white striped prison outfit, dreadlocks and a skin 'bronzer' intended 'to make him look African-American.'"

...naturally leads to San Francisco.  When all behavior is treated as morally equal, you get the following:

1) "supervised drug injection"

2) mockery of Catholics by the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" - without repercussion from media or the city

3) The Folsom Street Fair - where 2 year olds are spotted dressed in studded leather (you know, in honor of "Leather Week" in SF), and Catholics, again, are mercilessly mocked

4) city leaders deny the Marines permission to film a recruiting commerical - on the anniversary of 9/11.

5) ID cards for illegals in this sanctuary city...that's "likely to anger advocates of tougher immigration enforcement."

Right - that's like saying "Tomorrow will likely be Wednesday."

When moral relativism becomes the prevailing ideology, amorality will take over.  Look no further than this cesspool of a city - how do Deb Saunders and Melanie Morgan stand it?

And San Fran Nan is the third most powerful person in the United States???

Remember this come election time...

Why was Mahmoud Ahmadenijad invited to Columbia University to speak?

President Bollinger explains:

"I would also like to invoke a major theme in the development of freedom of speech as a central value in our society. It should never be thought that merely to listen to ideas we deplore in any way implies our endorsement of those ideas, or the weakness of our resolve to resist those ideas or our naiveté about the very real dangers inherent in such ideas. It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their voices. To hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible.

"That such a forum could not take place on a university campus in Iran today sharpens the point of what we do here. To commit oneself to a life—and a civil society—prepared to examine critically all ideas arises from a deep faith in the myriad benefits of a long-term process of meeting bad beliefs with better beliefs and hateful words with wiser words. That faith in freedom has always been and remains today our nation's most potent weapon against repressive regimes everywhere in the world. This is America at its best."

Inviting Ahmadenijad to speak at Columbia is "America at its best"?   What America does President Bollinger live in?

Quick history lesson for the President...

THIS is America at its best:



THIS is not: