Bits: Japan's Sexy Blue Fin, Too Hot to be a Journalist, Balkan Icons and Columbia & Israel/Palestine

1.

"Japan's Sacred Bluefin, Loved Too Much" by Blaine Harden, from the Washington Post

Read this article if only for lines like:

"'Tuna cannot look like skinny Japanese women.'"

"'I look for beauty and balanced plumpness," Ida said. "I am looking for a Catherine Zeta-Jones type of tuna.'"

Now I'm in the mood for sushi.

2.

"Hollywood Plugs Its Take of a Leak" by William Booth, from the Washington Post

So Hollywood once again dips into current events for ideas and turns the entire Judith Miller-Valerie Plame-Scotter Libby story into a movie. And what does the Washington Post point out, besides the major differences between the plot line (you know, in order to keep the narrative interesting for the viewers)?

"And while the real Judith Miller may be remembered as a stylish, slightly scary reporter of 59, headed off to jail in a quilted black jacket and tortoise-frame sunglasses, in the movie she is a sizzling Kate Beckinsale, 34, dressed in a, shall we say, form-fitting skirt."

"'People could say Kate is too good-looking to be a reporter,' admits Rod Lurie, the writer and director of the independently financed film."

What do I say to that?

3.

"Balkan nations put cultural stars on a pedestal" by Dan Bilefsky, from the International Herald Tribune

You know, you just have to celebrate those ever-great cultural icons, like Rocky and Tarzan with enormous statues.

Bojan Marceta, an advocate for the project, explained the reasoning behind the celebrity choices:

"Nobody from the wars of the 1990s or from the former Yugoslavia deserves a monument, because all of our leaders did was to prevent us from progressing. My generation can't find role models, so we have to look elsewhere. Hollywood can provide an answer."

Taking another view, Buka Sandor said:

"I don't like Rocky—it has nothing to do with this town, and the money could have been spent on something we need, like a new school. We are just showing off."

4.

"Bollinger's Backbone" Editorial by the New York Sun

Does this mean that a faculty that, among other viewpoints, is pro-Palestine/Islamic condemns a university to mediocrity? Oh yeah, and leftist equals anti-Israel apparently. I hate the NY Sun.

Responses to Ahmadinejad

Photos by Nashid Chaudhury.

First came the now infamous vicious introduction by Columbia University President Lee Bollinger where he called guest speaker Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "a petty and cruel dictator," talked about homosexual and underage persecution and called for complete release of Dr. Kian Tajbakhsh.

Ahmadinejad then took the stage, quoted passages from the Koran that weren't translated, commented on the show of disrespect from Bollinger and proceeded to speak about nuclear power, the absolute lack of homosexuals in Iran, the need to research to confirm facts about the Holocaust, terrorism and many other things.

The New York Sun, obviously, loved Bollinger's introduction, calling the invitation to Ahmadinejad a "blunder" and focusing on the Jewish reaction to that "tragedy" as they state in the editorial. They even ran portions of Bollinger's introduction in the Opinion section under the headline "Cease This Outrage." To their credit, they do feature another opinion piece and another article about Bollinger's disrespectful prologue.



Both the New York Times and the Washington Post took more reasonable stances.

Dana Milbank got it right when he said, "Without listening to Ahmadinejad, how can the world appreciate how truly nutty he is?" Maureen Dowd also put it perfectly when she wrote, "[regarding Bollinger] Once you’ve made the decision to invite a tyrannical leader, you can’t undo it by belittling him in public. Universities are supposed to be places where you can debate and hear dissenting voices; it would have been far better just to hand the mike to the students and let it rip."

By extending an invitation to someone, a foreign head of government nevertheless, calls for diplomacy and politeness. Common sense, no? By attacking him before Ahmadinejad even speaks is just plain wrong.

The Sun's editorial calledfor Bollinger to, essentially, pick a side: Israel or Palestine, and that it is duty as Columbia's president to do so, instead of being a "more neutral–we would say 'morally equivalent'—educator," as they write. That, I think, is ridiculous. As the president of Columbia, is duty is not to publicize and promote his views, but instead to bring the university together. And the Sun (I've recently become fascinated and more-than-slightly repulsed by this newspaper, hence my constant references to it, especially after reading several of these columns, but that's another story) has a little advice for Bollinger with dealing with his upset Middle East professors. Very subtle, Sun, very subtle.


Clever protest signs at Columbia.

A Closer Look Because of Ahmadinejad?

And this is just fucking ridiculous.

Protesting Ahmadinejad

Posters in Barnard's campus.

Reading through the New York Sun last Thursday, I found out that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was speaking at the World Leaders Forum at Columbia University. Excited about this event, I asked my sister (Barnard '11) if she could try to get me into the event. Alas, being that he is the president of Iran, one of the most-discussed countries in international affairs and journalism today, the event was filled up long before school started.

Freedom of speech thrives at Columbia and New York City—it's the home of the infamous 1968 strikes against the expansion of Columbia University into Morningside Heights (which is still a dilemma today) and the Vietnam War, students reacting against professors imposing their anti-Zionist views in the classrooms, even Ahmadinejad himself was supposed to speak at Columbia last year, but his invitation was revoked the professor incidences.

Coming from New School University where everything is something to protest against or rally for (Bob Kerrey is a war criminal; opposing the campus master plan and new GF/signature building; etc.), I've become used to this. Hell, the New School was formed out of dissent from Columbia University.

The New York Sun, the New York Daily News and Columbia/Barnard students are completely scandalized that Columbia would even extend an invitation to Ahmadinejad. Protests are planned for throughout the campus for today. This, though, is the wrong approach. While I understand everything the paranoid and extremely religious Iranian President has done and stands for, I still want to hear what he has to say. Isn't that what diplomacy is all about? If you denied someone the right to speak just because you didn't agree with their beliefs, then the world would be pretty boring. This is one of the flaws of Eugene Lang—everyone tends to share the same viewpoints, so debates aren't very common. The New School went through similar experiences with John McCain at the 2006 graduation and Newt Gingrinch at New School's Milano School, where McCain was booed and someone pulled a fire alarm during Gingrich's speech. What's the point of causing a ruckus? It's just disrespectful and paints you as immature. Don't protest, just listen, ask questions and have an actual conversation. Most people and media outlets blame Columbia University President Lee Bollinger for inviting Ahmadinejad, but it was a smart move on Bollinger's part. Ahmadinejad is speaking at the World Leader's Forum, and he is world leader, isn't he?

Hopefully, as the Columbia Spectator reports, the protests won't be as turbulent as predicted, and hopefully, students will understand the importance of hearing all voices, despite what their views and pasts might hold.