Chinese Dam Projects Criticized for Their Human Costs

From NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/world/asia/19dam.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

JIANMIN VILLAGE, China — Last year, Chinese officials celebrated the completion of the Three Gorges Dam by releasing a list of 10 world records. As in: The Three Gorges is the world’s biggest dam, biggest power plant and biggest consumer of dirt, stone, concrete and steel. Ever. Even the project’s official tally of 1.13 million displaced people made the list as record No. 10.

Each time, when my friend Ximena talked about the injustice suffered by the displaced people in her home country Columbia, I felt like listening to a story. Only today, I am realized the same story happend in China, in a much larger scale and influening the lives of million people. What can we do to help?

The Stranger (novel)

The Stranger, or The Outsider, (from the French L’Étranger, 1942) is a novel by Albert Camus. It is one of the best-known examples of absurdist fiction.

Albert Camus, like Meursault, was a pied-noir (literally black foot)—a Frenchman who lived in the Maghreb, the northernmost crescent of Africa along the Mediterranean Sea, the heart of France's colonies.

Usually classed as an existential novel, The Stranger is indeed based on Camus's theory of the absurd. In the first half of the novel Meursault is clearly an unreflecting, unapologetic individual. He is moved only by sensory experiences (the funeral procession, swimming at the beach, sexual intercourse with Marie, etc). Camus is reinforcing his basic thesis that there is no Truth, only (relative) truths—and, in particular, that truths in science (empiricism/rationality) and religion are ultimately meaningless. Of course, Meursault himself isn't directly aware of any of this -- his awareness of the absurd is subconscious at best; it 'colors' his actions. But Camus's basic point remains: the only real things are those that we experience physically. Thus, Meursault kills the Arab because of his response to the glaring sun, which beats down upon him as he moves toward his 'adversary' on the beach. The death of the Arab isn't particularly meaningful in itself: it's merely something else that 'happens' to Meursault. The significance of this episode is that it forces Meursault to reflect upon his life (and its meaning) as he contemplates his impending execution. Only by being tried and sentenced to death is Meursault forced to acknowledge his own mortality and the responsibility he has for his own life. Another theme is that we make our own destiny, and we, not God, are responsible for our actions and their consequences (non-determinism or existentialism).

Truth is another motif in the book. Meursault, despite being judged by many of his contemporaries as immoral or amoral, is consistently honest and direct. In his unyielding candor, he never displays emotions that he does not feel. Neither does he participate in social conventions calling for dishonesty. Although grief is considered the socially acceptable or "normal" response, Meursault does not exhibit grief at his mother's funeral. This incorruptible honesty takes on a naïve dimension when he goes through the trial process; he questions the need for a lawyer, claiming that the truth should speak for itself. Much of the second half of the book involves this theme of the imperfection of justice. It is Meursault's adherence to the literal truth that proves his undoing—a public official compiling the details of the case tells Meursault he will be saved if he repents and turns to Christianity, but Meursault is truthful to his atheism and refuses to pretend he has found religion. More generally, Meursault's honesty overrides his self-preservation instinct; he ultimately accepts punishment for his actions, and refuses to try evading justice.

As previously mentioned, a main theme is the absurd, and it is a theme that at times throughout the book seems to override the 'responsibility' aspect of the powerful ending. The ending seems to reflect that Meursault is in fact satisfied with his demise, to the extent that one can be satisfied with death, while also of course being terrified, whereas the erstwhile sensory observations, which were mostly stand-alone and, if they did impact him, did so in terms of something physical (e.g. "I became tired"), become very relevant to his self and being. It seems that, in facing death, he's found the first true feeling and revelation and happiness. But even that revelation was in the "gentle indifference of the world". A central contributor to this theme was that of the pause after he shot the Arab for the first time. In one key moment, while being interviewed by the magistrate, he mentions how it did not matter that he waited and shot four more times. In this incident, Meursault thinks completely objectively, and truly there is no difference in tangible results: the Arab died in one shot, and four more shots did not make him any "more" dead. This is seen also in his reflection on the absurdity of humanity creating a justice system to impose such meaningful actions as "death" upon a human: "The fact that the [death] sentence had been read at eight o'clock at night and not at five o'clock... the fact that it had been handed down in the name of some vague notion called the French (or German, or Chinese) people--all of it seemed to detract from the seriousness of the decision".

In writing the novel Camus was influenced by other existentialists such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Martin Heidegger. Camus and Sartre in particular had been involved in the French resistance during World War II and were friends until ultimately differing on their philosophical stances. Ultimately, Camus presents the world as essentially meaningless and therefore, the only way to arrive at any meaning or purpose is to make it oneself. Thus it is the individual and not the act that gives meaning to any given context. Camus deals with this issue, as well as man's relationship to man and issues such as suicide in his other works such as A Happy Death and The Plague, as well as his non-fiction works such as The Rebel and The Myth of Sisyphus.

原来他就是卡缪

这些天在看Camus's The Stranger。在深夜的地铁列车上，翻过了最后几行，车门一开，我跳到8街的站台上，长叹一口气，可算是看完了。全书行文流利，言简意赅，据说Camus 在小说的前半部故意模仿所谓“美国式小说”的写法，使用短句，故意打消意义上的勾连。 整部作品就像是在一个人的脸上不断加上湿透了的绵纸，读起来越来越沉重，到最后甚至连呼吸都困难。原本无邪的人生，因为偶然的出轨，向着不可避免的堕落发展。 主人公本来是个没有进取心的年轻人，他对人生缺乏兴趣，在本质上和世界、人类的普遍情感和道德都保持着距离，他作为一个陌生人，作为一个自我的他者生存在这个地球上。他自认为他的选择在绝大多数情况下由他的本能和基本生理需求所决定，而不是理智的判断。他不愿意过多的思考、缺乏爱和被爱的能力。因为不愿意违背他人的意志，他被动地行动，被动地承担了行动的后果，直至卷入杀人案而被判处斩首示众。他感受不到对自己母亲的爱，他感受不到对女朋友的爱，他感受不到朋友的友谊，他甚至在杀人之后感受不到悔恨。与此相对，他对周边环境有一种异乎寻常的敏感。无论是他所喜爱的海滩，还是城市的角落，他都能从最细微的生活细节中感受到满足。主人公的生活由一系列的没有目的的漫游所组成，他不是不愿意思考，而是觉得思考自己的生活是一件荒谬和没有意义的事。 Camus的高妙之处在于，他将人类本身所具有的blind, mass desire for life 和his protagonist’s thoughtful rejection of being lived as such对比起来，揭示出存在本身的荒谬和不可能性。即便本性as retreat as possible，他的主人公仍然陷入与他自身存在无关的争斗。在个人的努力无法改变命运这个意义上，这个故事是真正的悲剧。 爱和伦理所构成的外部世界对主人公来说是完全陌生的。最终，这个外在的世界对他进行了审判。这个审判，与其说是对他的谋杀罪（guilty）所进行的审判，不如说是对他的原罪（sin）所进行的审判。检察官对他态度的彻底转变是由于发现他对上帝毫无信仰，对自己的原罪予以否认，而不是由于他谋杀罪行的严重。最后的主人公被认定犯有故意谋杀罪，而这一认定完全建立在与案情无关的推理上—主要是建立在主人公对母亲去世的无动于衷和对宗教和惯常社会伦理的无视。个人行动的边界和社会集体行动准则之间的冲突，决定了主人公的命运—信仰或者死亡。 一个没有信仰的人犯了罪，那些具有道德优越感的人代表社会对他进行了双重审判（French people）。第一重审判是因为他对别人生命的剥夺，这个罪不至于死。第二重审判是因为他对社会基本伦理和道德的蔑视，这个罪威胁着这个社会存在的根本，因此是死罪。我不禁想起《读者》那个故事，什么是审判？什么是社会正义？审判是为了救赎还是惩罚？ 小说在最后几页到达了高潮。主人公和牧师进行了冗长的对话。开始，他采取了一贯的无所谓的态度。最后，他终于发作了，把牧师骂得体无完肤。宗教和宗教所许诺的救赎对主人公而言，完全没有任何意义。在生命的尽头，他意识到整个世界的无意义。也是在这里，他终于和自己的母亲取得了和解。 故事在此处嘎然而止，余音绕梁三日不绝。我不禁击节称快。一个人在临终前终于得到了身心的全面解放，终于能够直面必死的命运，还有什么比这更幸福的事？一个弱者终于摆脱了社会所强加给他的桎梏，能够自觉面对自己的行动及其后果，还有什么比这个更能彰显个性的崇高？ 如果说《潜水钟和蝴蝶》是一个人对生命的留恋，是一首美轮美奂的挽歌，那么《陌生人》就是对不自觉地、麻木的存在的一个决绝的否定，对于生命彻底的怀疑，一个响亮的嚏喷。这个故事其实并不容易进入，侥幸的是我先看了Without Stopping 和The Sheltering Sky，对本书所描述的人生状态有所准备。奇怪的是，阅读仍然对我产生了很大的影响。有的时候，在地铁摇摇晃晃的车厢里抬起头来，我看到对面的陌生人，突然奇怪自己身在何处，甚至会犹豫着要不要上车或者下车。一个看似无所谓的决定，最终会根本地改变一个人生命的方向，这个想法我无论如何也摆脱不掉。 和安娜在路易斯威勒小城里闲逛。中南部的小城，到处是衰败的景象。所谓的艺术区里，有几家古玩店和老家具店，经营者都是guy。午饭后，找到一个玻璃作坊，外面太冷，正好到里面暖和一下。两个匠人正在烧一个缂丝玻璃花瓶，炉火熊熊，一团融化的玻璃渐渐地变成了一件精美绝伦的艺术品。玻璃一遇热，变得绵软不堪，匠人们用剪刀就可以把它剪开，然后再随意加以造型。最后定型的时候，一个人拿起小榔头轻轻一敲，一声脆响，瓶口应声而断，一个花瓶就诞生了。 我跟安娜讲起了《陌生人》，安娜大惊，怎么这个年纪才看？那个可是卡缪的名著！卡缪，原来他就是卡缪！大学的时候把他的东西拿来看，总是看不进去，误打误撞，现在和他撞了个满怀。哈哈，人生何处不相逢？我在2007年碰到了1946年的故人。阿瑟米勒昨日去世，什么时候也要把他的书找来看看。

Norman Mailer was dead

Came home yesterday and started earlier today, just to find Norman Mailer was dead. From NY Times.

Norman Mailer, Towering Writer With Matching Ego, Is Dead

By CHARLES McGRATH Norman Mailer, the combative, controversial and often outspoken novelist who loomed over American letters longer and larger than any other writer of his generation, died early yesterday in Manhattan. He was 84.

Mr. Mailer burst on the scene in 1948 with “The Naked and the Dead,” a partly autobiographical novel about World War II, and for six decades he was rarely far from center stage. He published more than 30 books, including novels, biographies and works of nonfiction, and twice won the Pulitzer Prize: for “The Armies of the Night” (1968), which also won the National Book Award, and “The Executioner’s Song” (1979).

He also wrote, directed and acted in several low-budget movies, helped found The Village Voice and for many years was a regular guest on television talk shows, where he could reliably be counted on to make oracular pronouncements and deliver provocative opinions, sometimes coherently and sometimes not.

Mr. Mailer belonged to the old literary school that regarded novel writing as a heroic enterprise undertaken by heroic characters with egos to match. He was the most transparently ambitious writer of his era, seeing himself in competition not just with his contemporaries but with the likes of Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky.

He was also the least shy and risk-averse of writers. He eagerly sought public attention, and publicity inevitably followed him on the few occasions when he tried to avoid it. His big ears, barrel chest, striking blue eyes and helmet of seemingly electrified hair — jet black at first and ultimately snow white — made him instantly recognizable, a celebrity long before most authors were lured out into the limelight.

At different points in his life Mr. Mailer was a prodigious drinker and drug taker, a womanizer, a devoted family man, a would-be politician who ran for mayor of New York, a hipster existentialist, an antiwar protester, an opponent of women’s liberation and an all-purpose feuder and short-fused brawler, who with the slightest provocation would happily engage in head-butting, arm-wrestling and random punch-throwing. Boxing obsessed him and inspired some of his best writing. Any time he met a critic or a reviewer, even a friendly one, he would put up his fists and drop into a crouch.

Gore Vidal, with whom he frequently wrangled, once wrote: “Mailer is forever shouting at us that he is about to tell us something we must know or has just told us something revelatory and we failed to hear him or that he will, God grant his poor abused brain and body just one more chance, get through to us so that we will know. Each time he speaks he must become more bold, more loud, put on brighter motley and shake more foolish bells. Yet of all my contemporaries I retain the greatest affection for Norman as a force and as an artist. He is a man whose faults, though many, add to rather than subtract from the sum of his natural achievements.”

Mr. Mailer was a tireless worker who at his death was writing a sequel to his 2007 novel, “The Castle in the Forest.” If some of his books, written quickly and under financial pressure, were not as good as he had hoped, none of them were forgettable or without his distinctive stamp. And if he never quite succeeded in bringing off what he called “the big one” — the Great American Novel — it was not for want of trying.

Along the way, he transformed American journalism by introducing to nonfiction writing some of the techniques of the novelist and by placing at the center of his reporting a brilliant, flawed and larger-than-life character who was none other than Norman Mailer himself.

Gosh, I Love America!

“Gosh, I Love America!”: A 2008 Campaign Quiz

by Paul Slansky

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2007/10/15/071015sh_shouts_slansky

1. Two of these quotes are from Mike Gravel. Which one is from Mitt Romney?

(a) “I am prepared to tell you that Americans are getting fatter and dumber. I have no problem saying that.”

(b) “I think we at one point were fish coming out of the slime.”

(c) “Gosh, I love America!”

2. How did a Times editorial describe Rudolph Giuliani when he was mayor?

(a) “A human hand grenade.”

(b) “A pit bull with a comb-over.”

(c) “A clumsy wife-leaver.”

Who’s who?

3. Bob Allen.

4. Kristian Forland.

5. Thomas Ravenel.

(a) Bill Richardson’s field director in eastern Nevada, who resigned after it was revealed that he’d worked at a legal brothel and was wanted for writing bad checks.

(b) Rudy Giuliani’s South Carolina campaign chairman, who resigned after being indicted on cocaine charges.

(c) The campaign worker for John McCain who resigned after being arrested for soliciting sex in a Florida rest room.

6. After he came in second in the Iowa straw poll, Mike Huckabee said that the experience of being swarmed by the media was akin to what?

(a) “Britney Spears being released from prison.”

(b) “Lindsay Lohan shaving her head.”

(c) “Paris Hilton being photographed passed out in her car.”

7. Who is Janet Neff ?

(a) The reporter who wrote a story about Hillary Clinton’s cleavage.

(b) The judge whose nomination to a federal district court Sam Brownback tried to block because she had attended the same-sex commitment ceremony of a neighbor’s daughter four years earlier.

(c) The blogger on the John Edwards campaign who resigned after writing about George W. Bush’s “wingnut Christofascist base.”

8. Two of these candidates apologized for saying that American lives lost in the Iraq war had been “wasted.” Who apologized for saying that homosexuality was “a choice”?

(a) Bill Richardson.

(b) Barack Obama.

(c) John McCain.

9. Complete this statement by Newt Gingrich, who keeps threatening to enter the race: “I think it’s proven I’m _____.”

(a) not getting the Hispanic vote

(b) candidate material

(c) the kind of guy who leaves his wives as soon as they become ill

10. Two of these statements apply to Mitt Romney. Which one applies to Tom Tancredo?

(a) He said that his favorite novel is L. Ron Hubbard’s “Battlefield Earth,” though he pointed out that the author had not yet founded Scientology when he wrote it.

(b) He claimed to have been “a hunter pretty much all my life,” then admitted that he’d only rarely ever hunted, and “small varmints,” at that.

(c) He suggested that the United States “nuke Mecca.”

Who did what?

11. Fred Thompson.

12. Dennis Kucinich.

13. John Edwards.

14. Rudy Giuliani.

(a) Found his name often appearing in sentences containing the word “hair” or “haircut.”

(b) Answered a phone call from his wife in the middle of a speech to the N.R.A.

(c) Got laughed at when he referred to “my inauguration as President” in 2009.

• from the issue
• cartoon bank
• e-mail this

(d) Found his name often appearing in sentences containing the word “lazy.”

15. At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Joseph Biden referred to the queue of senators waiting to speak. How did he pronounce “queue”?

(a) “Kwa-you.”

(b) “Kway.”

(c) “Cue-you-ee.”

Who did what?

16. Hillary Clinton.

17. Chuck Hagel.

18. Barack Obama.

19. John McCain.

(a) Said that MoveOn.org, because of its ill-conceived “General Betray Us” ad, “ought to be thrown out of this country.”

(b) Was upset to learn that a formerly friendly mogul had switched candidates.

(c) Mistakenly said that “ten thousand people died” in a Kansas tornado that claimed twelve lives.

(d) Called a press conference to announce an unreadiness to announce anything.

20. Who is Jim Riches?

(a) The Fox News reporter who broke the erroneous story that Barack Obama attended a Muslim school.

(b) A business associate of the indicted Clinton fund-raiser Norman Hsu.

(c) The New York Fire Department deputy chief who said of Rudy Giuliani, “If somebody can tell me what he did on 9/11 that was so good, I’d love to hear it. All he did was give information on the TV.”

21. What did John McCain say could cause him to drop out of the race before the New Hampshire primary?

(a) “Forgetting which world leaders are still alive.”

(b) “Contracting a fatal disease.”

(c) “Getting caught in a men’s-room stall with Larry Craig.”

书评和书

越孤独，越刻薄 （摘自http://www.huangjiwei.com/blog/） 《余欢》-刘瑜著 我的偏见虽不至于从封面启程，可至少也会从封面的一部分——前勒口——齐步-走！在那个位置上，一般印有花样百出的“作者简介”。本书“前勒口”说，这本小说的作者为女性，网络写手，写小说，写随笔，写政论，正业为哥伦比亚大学政治学博士……这一行简简单单的“简介”全无语文特技，却足以让我的偏见陡然端正少许……以我有限的阅读经验猜，那些将写小说一事儿当玩票儿的知识女性作者成为文学黑马的几率偏高。 “房间里没有开灯，陈朗是故意不开灯的。在她不多的朋友中，夜晚算是一个。多么忠实的朋友，陈朗想，从不失约，也不多话……像一个曾经追求了陈朗一辈子但如今已口干舌燥的情人，那么安静地坐着。无言，无语，无条件。”前面，是“星球”开篇语的一部分。它让我刚刚低眉头顺眼矮下去矮下去矮到尘埃里的另外一小撮偏见（好书不用看完只看第一页就知道）忽又昂然起来。本来嘛，一个好苹果吃一口就知道了，烂苹果也一样。你非把它全部吃完才有感觉？傻死！ 《余欢》收入作者《孤独得像一颗星球》、《那么，爱呢》两部小说。比较而言，我觉得“星球”似乎更好些，它比“那么爱”更劲道更睿智更雅皮更美剧更疯狂主妇也更欲望都市。写出前面这个句子的头十秒，有点得意。可十秒一过，准时准点儿，词不达意的沮丧如房地产短信广告般纷至沓来……越是一部好小说，转述它时，误解它伤害它乃至糟蹋它的可能性也就越多。好小说无法转述。既然天下之喻尽为跛脚，我一连排比出的那些许“更”，也无非是在泄漏我的犹疑或失语。 “星球”的故事开始于夏天到来，结束于夏天离去。收尾处，“星球”上的三个异旅女性陈朗、如意、小蕾依然孤家寡人：“他们有过的男朋友依旧是3个、2个和0个”，她们的婚姻谋划依然滞留于要么找到“一个悄悄在夜总会唱歌的著名学者”、要么去做“Max Studio总裁的情妇”、要么干脆去当一位“12个孩子的奶奶”的昏想阶段……读完这段“为了失意的聚会”，我翻回小说的第15小节重读一遍。 在那个名为“别人的幸福”的片段里，陈朗、如意、小蕾聚首友人蒋玲玲的婚礼。婚礼后，三位姑娘醋意大发，刻薄如东方红日光焰万丈。可就在同时，三位姑娘的沮丧与孤独也顺利抵达巅峰：“她们做女人也算是鞠躬尽瘁、老而后已，该冒傻气的时候冒傻气，该露乳沟的时候露乳沟……各种凶器，信手拈来，无所不用其极。但是她们找不到爱情。青春的汽笛已经拉响，手上的另一张车票还是无人认领。” 我不认为这仅仅是几位姑娘们一己的孤独，正如我不认为刘瑜在书中讲述的一失恋、一网恋两个故事仅仅是一群异旅之人的域外悲欢一样。至少它还让我就此猛然看见周遭无数伶牙俐齿聪慧刻薄者后身儿掩蔽着的无穷叹息。它甚至让我开始假想这位贫嘴如美女版郭德纲、睿智如博士级亦舒、洞见如亚裔族埃柯的作者本人婚姻状况政治面目幸福指数等诸多“起底族”最爱的八卦，终于无解。可就算有解，就算晒到网上换得掌声鲜花臭鸡蛋，又能怎样？ “这个夏天，如同所有的夏天，不过是上帝的一个哈欠，无关痛痒地打在这个世界脸上，然后无关痛痒地消失。留下的，是芸芸众生，散落在大街小巷上，兴高采烈地、痛心疾首地原地打转……地狱已经沸腾，天堂则人满为患。我们都被锁在这人世间，都企图挣脱，却都将变成这大地上的尘土。”我除了在这个“星球”结尾段中看见你我每日每时感同身受近似无垠的绝望外，还顺便将自我偏见之一安全升级：当把一个好苹果连皮儿带馅儿全部吃完时，我们至少等于干掉了N个好苹果……谁吃谁知道。 《余欢》在线阅读 http://book.sina.com.cn/nzt/novel/lit/yuhuan/index.shtml

French humor

From NY Times, Sarkozy Faces Labor and Marital Crises By ELAINE SCIOLINO On Thursday Mr. Sarkozy, the 52-year-old French leader, faced setbacks on two different domestic fronts: a wave of strikes that swept through France and an official announcement that his 11-year marriage had come to an end. Shortly after a presidential spokesman, David Martinon, told a hastily called news conference that he had absolutely no comment about his boss’s marriage, the Élysée palace dropped the bombshell that Mr. Sarkozy and his wife, Cécilia, “announce their separation by mutual consent.” The palace later clarified that the duo had divorced. Immediately after the news was broadcast on the radio and television, striking protesters in the port city of Le Havre shouted, “Cécilia, we are like you! We are fed up with Nicolas!”

Deborah Kerr: A Career in Film

From NY Times. Deborah Kerr died at 86.

Doris Lessing Wins Nobel Prize in Literature

FRom NY Times:

Doris Lessing, the Persian-born, Rhodesian-raised and London-residing novelist whose deeply autobiographical writing has swept across continents and reflects her engagement with the social and political issues of her time, on Thursday won the 2007 Nobel Prize for Literature.

Announcing the award in Stockholm, the Swedish Academy described her as “that epicist of the female experience, who with skepticism, fire and visionary power has subjected a divided civilization to scrutiny.” The award comes with a 10 million Swedish crown honorarium, about $1.6 million. Ms. Lessing, who turns 88 later this month, never finished high school and largely educated herself through voracious reading. She has written dozens of books of fiction, as well as plays, nonfiction and two volumes of her autobiography. She is the 11th woman to win a Nobel Prize in literature. Ms. Lessing learned of the news from a group of reporters camped on her doorstep as she returned from visiting her son in the hospital. “I was a bit surprised because I had forgotten about it actually,” she said. “My name has been on the short list for such a long time.” As the persistent sound of her phone ringing came from inside the house, Ms. Lessing said that on second thought, she was not as surprised “because this has been going on for something like 40 years,” referring to the number of times she has been on the short list for the Nobel. “Either they were going to give it to me sometime before I popped off or not at all.” Stout, sharp and a bit hard of hearing, after a few moments Ms. Lessing excused herself to go inside. “Now I’m going to go in to answer my telephone,” she said. “I swear I’m going upstairs to find some suitable sentences which I will be using from now on.” Although Ms. Lessing is passionate about social and political issues, she is unlikely to be as controversial as the previous two winners, Orhan Pamuk of Turkey or Harold Pinter of Britain, whose views on current political situations led commentators to suspect that the Swedish Academy was choosing its winners in part for nonliterary reasons. Ms. Lessing’s strongest legacy may be that she inspired a generation of feminists with her breakthrough novel, “The Golden Notebook.” In its citation, the Swedish Academy said: “The burgeoning feminist movement saw it as a pioneering work and it belongs to the handful of books that informed the 20th century view of the male-female relationship.” Ms. Lessing wrote candidly about the inner lives of women and rejected the notion that they should abandon their own lives to marriage and children. “The Golden Notebook,” published in 1962, tracked the story of Anna Wulf, a woman who wanted to live freely and was in some ways Ms. Lessing’s alter-ego. Because she frankly described anger and aggression in women, she was attacked as “unfeminine.” In response, Ms. Lessing wrote: “Apparently what many women were thinking, feeling, experiencing came as a great surprise.” Although she has been held up as an early feminist icon, Ms. Lessing later disavowed that she herself was a feminist, earning the ire of some British critics and academics. Clare Hanson, professor of 20th century literature at the University of Southampton in Britain and a keynote speaker at the second international Doris Lessing Conference this past July, said: “She’s been ahead of her time, prescient and thoughtful, immensely wide-ranging.” Ms. Lessing was born Doris May Tayler in 1919 in what was then known as Persia (now Iran). Her father was a bank clerk and her mother was trained as a nurse. Lured by the promise of farming riches, the family moved to Rhodesia where Ms. Lessing had what she has described as a painful childhood. She left home when she was 15 and in 1937, she moved to Salisbury (now Harare) in Southern Rhodesia, where she took jobs as a telephone operator and nursemaid. At 19, she married and had two children. A few years later, feeling imprisoned, she abandoned her family. She later married Gottfried Lessing, a central member of the Left Book Club, a left wing organization, and they had a son together. Ms. Lessing, who joined the Communist Party in Africa, dropped out of the party in 1954 and repudiated Marxist theory during the Hungarian crisis of 1956, a view for which she was criticized by some British academics.

巴黎

我的朋友最近重返巴黎，这已经是她第三次造访这座城市（http://liji66.spaces.live.com/)/），跟着她的文字逛巴黎，虽然是浮光掠影，但是从她散淡的文笔，可以看出她对这个城市的真感情。 我呢，每天也有两个小时逛巴黎。每天从纽约大学到哥大要做一个小时的地铁，我在地铁上安心地读书，Paul Bowles带着我在1930-1931年的巴黎游逛。他从弗吉尼亚大学出逃，带着24美元到了巴黎，通过朋友的介绍，认识了无数的文人骚客。他所描写的巴黎，让人兴奋地流鼻血，一个20岁的小孩不断地遇到自己的文学偶像，这种感觉大概只有在20年代末的巴黎才有可能经历。他在访问纪德的前夕，临阵脱逃，跳上去阿尔卑斯山的火车，在瑞士、德国游历。此后，他跟着Aeron Coupland到柏林，把当时旅居德国的画家、诗人、作曲家都骚扰了一遍。他的经历就像是坐在不断加速的过山车上，他把战前欧洲艺术中心的那种令人悸动的瞬间，呈现在我的眼前。 前几天，重读卡尔维诺的《隐性城市》。他说，城市随着时间的变化而改变着它的面孔，因此，有的城市虽然建立在同样的地址上，有同样的名字，但是它们其实是完全不同、毫无联系的城市。20世纪20年代的巴黎，到底和当下的巴黎有什么共同之处？它们是否还是同样的城市？去巴黎的人，到底想看到什么？从我生活在纽约的经验来看，每个人看到的都是他们自己心里所想年的城市。每个城市只不过是他们幻想的变现。你心里平静，你就会看到平静的城市。你的心里有波澜，城市就会被阴云所笼罩。这些城市不过是我们心情的投影。

Myanmar

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/world/asia/26cnd-myanmar.html?hp From New York Times An injured monk was led away from the clashes with the police that left at least four people, including three monks, dead. A group of monks squat in protest after riot police stopped their progress toward Shwedagon Pagoda in Yangon, Myanmar. The government of Myanmar began a crackdown after tolerating ever-larger protests in recent days, using clubs and tear-gas to beat back protesters, and arresting hundreds of monks who have been at the center of the protest marches.

梦

昨天晚上，梦到我和一个朋友开飞机到不知名的海边度假。住在海边的平房里，宽敞通风。夜里，走到屋外，一抬头看见了银河。星光璀璨，真的像是一条波光粼粼的大河。我看得目瞪口呆。 临睡前看亦舒的《黑色笑话》。一个人得了癌症，三个月后要死。因此，他改变了对人生的态度，决定在最后90天内认真写作。朋友们突然都来了，家里热闹非凡。他的书和专栏也突然蹿红，稿酬大增，电视采访邀请不断。眼看这个人就要死了，他的大夫试了一种新药，就了他的命。但是，一下子朋友都散了，出版社对他的书也失去了兴趣，这个人感到好像死了一样。故事的结尾，他终于放开胸怀，决定过踏实的写作生活，到街上寻找新的女朋友，新的生活，新的感受。嘿，又是一个都市的神话。 开始读Paul Bowles的自传Without Stopping。文笔真好，有时间要把它翻译成中文。一个小孩子5岁的时候就看透了人生，难怪他妈妈的朋友说，这个孩子好怪，他有一颗很老的灵魂。Paul Bowles日前在摩洛哥逝世，终年94岁。不知道他去世的时候，是不是重新拥有了一颗孩童的灵魂。

President Ahmadinejad Delivers Remarks at Columbia University

SPEAKER: IRANIAN PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD [*] AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful... TRANSLATOR: The president is reciting verses from the holy Koran in Arabic. AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Oh, God, hasten the arrival of Imam al-Mahdi and grant him good health and victory and make us his followers and those to attest to his rightfulness. Distinguished Dean, dear professors and students, ladies and gentlemen, at the outset I would like to extend my greetings to all of you. I am grateful to the almighty God for providing me with the opportunity to be in an academic environment, those seeking truth and striving for the promotion of science and knowledge. At the outset I want to complain a bit from the person who read this political statement against me. In Iran tradition requires that when we demand a person to invite to be a speaker we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment and we don't think it's necessary before this speech is even given to come in with a series of claims... (APPLAUSE) ... and to attempt in a so-called manner to provide vaccination of some sort to our students and our faculty. I think the text read by the dear gentleman here, more than addressing me, was an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here, present here. In a university environment we must allow people to speak their mind, to allow everyone to talk so that the truth is eventually revealed by all. Certainly he took more than all the time I was allocated to speak, and that's fine with me. We'll just leave that to add up with the claims of respect for freedom and the freedom of speech that's given to us in this country. Many parts of his speech, there were many insults and claims that were incorrect, regretfully. AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Of course, I think that he was affected by the press, the media, and the political, sort of, mainstream line that you read here that goes against the very grain of the need for peace and stability in the world around us. Nonetheless, I should not begin by being affected by this unfriendly treatment. I will tell you what I have to say, and then the questions he can raise and I'll be happy to provide answers. But as for one of the issues that he did raise, I most certainly would need to elaborate further so that we, for ourselves, can see how things fundamentally work. It was my decision in this valuable forum and meeting to speak with you about the importance of knowledge, of information, of education. Academics and religious scholars are shining torches who shed light in order to remove darkness. And the ambiguities around us in guiding humanity out of ignorance and perplexity. The key to the understanding of the realities around us rests in the hands of the researchers, those who seek to discover areas that are hidden, the unknown sciences, the windows of realities that they can open is done only through efforts of the scholars and the learned people in this world. AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): With every effort there is a window that is opened, and one reality is discovered. Whenever the high stature of science and wisdom is preserved and the dignity of scholars and researchers are respected, humans have taken great strides toward their material and spiritual promotion. In contrast, whenever learned people and knowledge have been neglected, humans have become stranded in the darkness of ignorance and negligence. If it were not for human instinct, which tends toward continual discovery of truth, humans would have always remained stranded in ignorance and no way would not have discovered how to improve the life that we are given. The nature of man is, in fact, a gift granted by the Almighty to all. The Almighty led mankind into this world and granted him wisdom and knowledge as his prime gift enabling him to know his God. In the story of Adam, a conversation occurs between the Almighty and his angels. The angels call human beings an ambitious and merciless creature and protested against his creation. But the Almighty responded, quote, "I have knowledge of what you are ignorant of," unquote. Then the Almighty told Adam the truth. And on the order of the Almighty, Adam revealed it to the angels. The angels could not understand the truth as revealed by the human being. AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): The Almighty said to them, quote, "Did not I say that I am aware of what is hidden in heaven and in the universe?" unquote. In this way the angels prostrated themselves before Adam. In the mission of all divine prophets, the first sermons were of the words of God, and those words -- piety, faith and wisdom -- have been spread to all mankind. Regarding the holy prophet Moses, may peace be upon him, God says, quote, "And he was taught wisdom, the divine book, the Old Testament and the New Testament. He is the prophet appointed for the sake of the children of Israel, and I rightfully brought a sign from the Almighty, holy Koran (SPEAKING IN PERSIAN)," unquote. The first words, which were revealed to the holy prophet of Islam, call the prophet to read, quote, "Read, read in the name of your God, who supersedes everything," unquote, the Almighty, quote again, "who taught the human being with the pen," unquote. Quote, "The Almighty taught human beings what they were ignorant of," unquote. You see, in the first verses revealed to the holy prophet of Islam, words of reading, teaching and the pen are mentioned. These verses in fact introduced the Almighty as the teacher of human beings, the teacher who taught humans what they were ignorant of. In another part of the Koran, on the mission of the holy prophet of Islam, it is mentioned that the Almighty appointed someone from amongst the common people as their prophet in order to, quote, "read for them the divine verses," unquote, and quote again, "and purify them from ideological and ethical contamination" unquote, and quote again, "to teach them the divine book and wisdom," unquote. AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): My dear friends, all the words and messages of the divine prophets from Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, to David and Solomon and Moses, to Jesus and Mohammad delivered humans from ignorance, negligence, superstitions, unethical behavior, and corrupted ways of thinking, with respect to knowledge, on the path to knowledge, light and rightful ethics. In our culture, the word science has been defined as illumination. In fact, the science means brightness and the real science is a science which rescues the human being from ignorance, to his own benefit. In one of the widely accepted definitions of science, it is stated that it is the light which sheds to the hearts of those who have been selected by the almighty. Therefore, according to this definition, science is a divine gift and the heart is where it resides. If we accept that science means illumination, then its scope supersedes the experimental sciences and it includes every hidden and disclosed reality. One of the main harms inflicted against science is to limit it to experimental and physical sciences. This harm occurs even though it extends far beyond this scope. Realities of the world are not limited to physical realities and the materials, just a shadow of supreme reality. And physical creation is just one of the stories of the creation of the world. Human being is just an example of the creation that is a combination of a material and the spirit. And another important point is the relationship of science and purity of spirit, life, behavior and ethics of the human being. In the teachings of the divine prophets, one reality shall always be attached to science; the reality of purity of spirit and good behavior. Knowledge and wisdom is pure and clear reality. It is -- science is a light. It is a discovery of reality. And only a pure scholar and researcher, free from wrong ideologies, superstitions, selfishness and material trappings can discover -- discover the reality. AHMADINEJAD: My dear friends and scholars, distinguished participants, science and wisdom can also be misused, a misuse caused by selfishness, corruption, material desires and material interests, as well as individual and group interests. Material desires place humans against the realities of the world. Corrupted and dependent human beings resist acceptance of reality. And even if they do accept it, they do not obey it. There are many scholars who are aware of the realities but do not accept them. Their selfishness does not allow them to accept those realities. Do those who, in the course of human history, wage wars, not understand the reality that lives, properties, dignity, territories, and the rights of all human beings should be respected, or did they understand it but neither have faith in nor abide by it? My dear friends, as long as the human heart is not free from hatred, envy, and selfishness, it does not abide by the truth, by the illumination of science and science itself. Science is the light, and scientists must be pure and pious. If humanity achieves the highest level of physical and spiritual knowledge but its scholars and scientists are not pure, then this knowledge cannot serve the interests of humanity, and several events can ensue. First, the wrongdoers reveal only a part of the reality, which is to their own benefit, and conceal the rest. As we have witnessed with respect to the scholars of the divine religions in the past, too, unfortunately, today, we see that certain researchers and scientists are still hiding the truth from the people. Second, science, scientists, and scholars are misused for personal, group, or party interests. So, in today's world, bullying powers are misusing many scholars and scientists in different fields with the purpose of stripping nations of their wealth. AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): And they use all opportunities only for their own benefit. For example, they deceive people by using scientific methods and tools. They, in fact, wish to justify their own wrongdoings, though. By creating nonexistent enemies, for example, and an insecure atmosphere, they try to control all in the name of combating insecurity and terrorism. They even violate individual and social freedoms in their own nations under that pretext. They do not respect the privacy of their own people. They tap telephone calls and try to control their people. They create an insecure psychological atmosphere in order to justify their warmongering acts in different parts of the world. As another example, by using precise scientific methods and planning, they begin their onslaught on the domestic cultures of nations, the cultures which are the result of thousands of years of interaction, creativity and artistic activities. They try to eliminate these cultures in order to separate the people from their identity and cut their bonds with their own history and values. They prepare the ground for stripping people from their spiritual and material wealth by instilling in them feelings of intimidation, desire for imitation and (inaudible) submission to oppressive powers and disability. Making nuclear, chemical and biological bombs and weapons of mass destruction is yet another result of the misuse of science and research by the big powers. AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Without cooperation of certain scientists and scholars, we would not have witnessed production of different nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Are these weapons to protect global security? What can a perpetual nuclear umbrella threat achieve for the sake of humanity? If nuclear war wages between nuclear powers, what human catastrophe will take place? Today we can see the nuclear effects in even new generations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima residents, which might be witnessed in even the next generations to come. Presently, the effects of the depleted uranium used in weapons since the beginning of the war in Iraq can be examined and investigated accordingly. These catastrophes take place only when scientists and scholars are misused by oppressors. Another point of sorrow: Some big powers create a monopoly over science and prevent other nations in achieving scientific development as well. This, too, is one of the surprises of our time. Some big powers do not want to see the progress of other societies and nations. They turn to thousands of reasons, make allegations, place economic sanctions to prevent other nations from developing and advancing, all resulting from their distance from human values and the teachings of the divine prophets. Regretfully, they have not been trained to serve mankind. AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Dear academics, dear faculty and scholars, students, I believe that the biggest God-given gift to man is science and knowledge. Man's search for knowledge and the truth through science is what it guarantees to do in getting close to God. But science has to combine with the purity of the spirit and of the purity of man's spirit so that scholars can unveil the truth and then use that truth for advancing humanity's cause. These scholars would be not only people who would guide humanity, but also guide humanity towards a better future. And it is necessary that big powers should not allow mankind to engage in monopolistic activities and to prevent other nations from achieving that science. Science is a divine gift by God to everyone, and therefore, it must remain pure. God is aware of all reality. All researchers and scholars are loved by God. So I hope there will be a day where these scholars and scientists will rule the world and God himself will arrive with Moses and Christ and Mohammed to rule the world and to take us toward justice. I'd like to thank you now but refer to two points made in the introduction given about me, and then I will be open for any questions. Last year -- I would say two years ago -- I raised two questions. You know that my main job is a university instructor. AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Right now, as president of Iran, I still continue teaching graduate and Ph.D.-level courses on a weekly basis. My students are working with me in scientific fields. I believe that I am an academic, myself. So I speak with you from an academic point of view, and I raised two questions. But, instead of a response, I got a wave of insults and allegations against me. And regretfully, they came mostly from groups who claimed most to believe in the freedom of speech and the freedom of information. You know quite well that Palestine is an old wound, as old as 60 years. For 60 years, these people are displaced. For 60 years, these people are being killed. For 60 years, on a daily basis, there's conflict and terror. For 60 years, innocent women and children are destroyed and killed by helicopters and airplanes that break the house over their heads. For 60 years, children and kindergartens, in schools, in high schools, are in prison being tortured. For 60 years, security in the Middle East has been endangered. For 60 years, the slogan of expansionism from the Nile to the Euphrates is being chanted by certain groups in that part of the world. And as an academic, I asked two questions; the same two questions that I will ask here again. And you judge, for yourselves, whether the response to these questions should be the insults, the allegations, and all the words and the negative propaganda or should we really try and face these two questions and respond to them? AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Like you, like any academic, I, too, will keep -- not yet become silent until I get the answer. So I'm awaiting logical answers instead of insults. My first question was if -- given that the Holocaust is a present reality of our time, a history that occurred, why is there not sufficient research that can approach the topic from different perspectives? Our friend referred to 1930 as the point of departure for this development. However, I believe the Holocaust from what we've read happened during World War II, after 1930, in the 1940s. So, you know, we have to really be able to trace the event. My question was simple: There are researchers who want to approach the topic from a different perspective. Why are they put into prison? Right now, there are a number of European academics who have been sent to prison because they attempted to write about the Holocaust or research it from a different perspective, questioning certain aspects of it. My question is: Why isn't it open to all forms of research? I have been told that there's been enough research on the topic. And I ask, well, when it comes to topics such as freedom, topics such as democracy, concepts and norms such as God, religion, physics even, or chemistry, there's been a lot of research, but we still continue more research on those topics. We encourage it. But, then, why don't we encourage more research on a historical event that has become the root, the cause of many heavy catastrophes in the region in this time and age? AHMADINEJAD: Why shouldn't there be more research about the root causes? That was my first question. And my second question, well, given this historical event, if it is a reality, we need to still question whether the Palestinian people should be paying for it or not. After all, it happened in Europe. The Palestinian people had no role to play in it. So why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price of an event they had nothing to do with? The Palestinian people didn't commit any crime. They had no role to play in World War II. They were living with the Jewish communities and the Christian communities in peace at the time. They didn't have any problems. And today, too, Jews, Christians and Muslims live in brotherhood all over the world in many parts of the world. They don't have any serious problems. But why is it that the Palestinians should pay a price, innocent Palestinians, for 5 million people to remain displaced or refugees abroad for 60 years. Is this not a crime? Is asking about these crimes a crime by itself? Why should an academic myself face insults when asking questions like this? Is this what you call freedom and upholding the freedom of thought? And as for the second topic, Iran's nuclear issue, I know there is time limits, but I need time. I mean, a lot of time was taken from me. We are a country, we are a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency. For over 33 years we are a member state of the agency. The bylaw of the agency explicitly states that all member states have the right to the peaceful nuclear fuel technology. This is an explicit statement made in the bylaw, and the bylaw says that there is no pretext or excuse, even the inspections carried by the IAEA itself that can prevent member states' right to have that right. Of course, the IAEA is responsible to carry out inspections. We are one of the countries that's carried out the most amount of level of cooperation with the IAEA. They have had hours and weeks and days of inspections in our country, and over and over again the agency's reports indicate that Iran's activities are peaceful, that they have not detected a deviation, and that Iran -- they have received positive cooperation from Iran. But regretfully, two or three monopolistic powers, selfish powers want to force their word on the Iranian people and deny them their right. AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): They keep saying... (CROSSTALK) AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): They tell us you don't let them -- they won't let them inspect. Why not? Of course we do. How come is it, anyway, that you have that right and we can't have it? We want to have the right to peaceful nuclear energy. They tell us, don't make it yourself, we'll give it to you. Well, in the past, I tell you, we had contracts with the U.S. government, with the British government, the French government, the German government, and the Canadian government on nuclear development for peaceful purposes. But unilaterally, each and every one of them canceled their contracts with us, as a result of which the Iranian people had to pay a heavy cost in billions of dollars. Why do we need the fuel from you? You've not even given us spare aircraft parts that we need for civilian aircraft for 28 years under the name of embargo and sanctions because we're against, for example, human rights or freedom? Under that pretext, you are deny us that technology? We want to have the right to self-determination toward our future. We want to be independent. Don't interfere in us. If you don't give us spare parts for civilian aircraft, what is the expectation that you'd give us fuel for nuclear development for peaceful purposes? For 30 years, we've faced these problems for over $5 billion to the Germans and then to the Russians, but we haven't gotten anything. And the words have not been completed. It is our right. We want our right. And we don't want anything beyond the law, nothing less than international law. We are a peaceful, loving nation. We love all nations. (APPLAUSE) MODERATOR: Mr. President, your statements here today and in the past have provoked many questions which I would like to pose to you on behalf of the students and faculty who have submitted them to me. Let me begin with the question to which you just alluded... AHMADINEJAD: Just one by one, one by one -- could you just... MODERATOR: Yes. (APPLAUSE) MODERATOR: The first question is: Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state? AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We love all nations. We are friends with the Jewish people. There are many Jews in Iran, leaving peacefully, with security. You must understand that in our constitution and our laws and in the parliamentary elections for every 150,000 people, we get one representative in the parliament. For the Jewish community, for one- fifth of this number, they still get one independent representative in the parliament. So our proposal to the Palestinian plight is a humanitarian and democratic proposal. What we say is that to solve this 60-year problem, we must allow the Palestinian people to decide about its future for itself. This is compatible with the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations and the fundamental principles enshrined in it. We must allow Jewish Palestinians, Muslim Palestinians and Christian Palestinians to determine their own fate themselves through a free referendum. AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Whatever they choose as a nation, everybody should accept and respect. Nobody should interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian nation. Nobody should sow the seeds of discord. Nobody should spend tens of billions of dollars equipping and arming one group there. We say allow the Palestinian nation to decide its own future, to have the right to self-determination for itself. This is what we are saying as the Iranian nation. (APPLAUSE) QUESTION: Mr. President, I think many members of our audience would like to hear a clearer answer to that question. That is... (APPLAUSE) The question is: Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state? And I think you could answer that question with a single word, either yes or no. (APPLAUSE) AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): You asked the question, and then you want the answer the way you want to hear it. Well, this isn't really a free flow of information. (APPLAUSE) I'm just telling you what my position is. I'm asking you: Is the Palestinian issue not an international issue of prominence or not? Please tell me, yes or no? (APPLAUSE) There's the plight of a people. QUESTION: The answer to your question is yes. AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Well, thank you for your cooperation. We recognize there's a problem there that's been going on for 60 years. Everybody provides a solution. And our solution is a free referendum. Let this referendum happen, and then you'll see what the results are. AHMADINEJAD: Let the people of Palestine freely choose what they want for their future. And then what you want in your mind to happen there will happen and will be realized. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) second question, which was posed by President Bollinger earlier and comes from a number of other students: Why is your government providing aid to terrorists? Will you stop doing so and permit international monitoring to certify that you have stopped? AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Well, I want to pose a question here to you. If someone comes and explodes bombs around you, threatens your president, members of the administration, kills the members of the Senate or Congress, how would you treat them? Would you reward them, or would you name them a terrorist group? Well, it's clear. You would call them a terrorist. My dear friends, the Iranian nation is a victim of terrorism. For --26 years ago, where I worked, close to where I worked, in a terrorist operation, the elected president of the Iranian nation and the elected prime minister of Iran lost their lives in a bomb explosion. They turned into ashes. A month later, in another terrorist operation, 72 members of our parliament and highest-ranking officials, including four ministers and eight deputy ministers' bodies were shattered into pieces as a result of terrorist attacks. AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Within six months, over 4,000 Iranians lost their lives, assassinated by terrorist groups. All this carried out by the hand of one single terrorist group. Regretfully, that same terrorist group now, today, in your country, is being -- operating under the support of the U.S. administration, working freely, distributing declarations freely, and their camps in Iraq are supported by the U.S. government. They're secured by the U.S. government. Our nation has been harmed by terrorist activities. We were the first nation that objected to terrorism and the first to uphold the need to fight terrorism. (APPLAUSE) QUESTION: Mr. President, a number of questioners -- sorry -- a number of people have asked... AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We need to address the root causes of terrorism and eradicate those root causes. We live in the Middle East. For us, it's quite clear which powers, sort of, incite terrorists, support them, fund them. We know that. Our nation, the Iranian nation, through history has always extended a hand of friendship to other nations. We're a cultured nation. We don't need to resort to terrorism. We've been victims of terrorism, ourselves. And it's regrettable that people who argue they're fighting terrorism, instead of supporting the Iranian people and nation, instead of fighting the terrorists that are attacking them, they're supporting the terrorists and then turn the fingers to us. AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): This is most regrettable. QUESTION: Mr. President, a further set of questions challenged your view of the Holocaust. Since the evidence that this occurred in Europe in the 1940s, as a result of the actions of the German Nazi government, since that -- those facts -- are well documented, why are you calling for additional research? There seems to be no purpose in doing so, other than to question whether the Holocaust actually occurred as a historical fact. Can you explain why you believe more research is needed into the facts of what are -- what is -- what are incontrovertible? AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Thank you very much for your question. I am an academic, and you are as well. Can you argue that researching a phenomenon is finished, forever done? Can we close the books for good on a historical event? There are different perspectives that come to light after every research is done. Why should we stop research at all? Why should we stop the progress of science and knowledge? You shouldn't ask me why I'm asking questions. You should ask yourselves why you think that that's questionable? Why do you want to stop the progress of science and research? Do you ever take what's known as absolute in physics? We had principles in mathematics that were granted to be absolute in mathematics for over 800 years. But new science has gotten rid of those absolutisms, come forward other different logics of looking at mathematics and sort of turned the way we look at it as a science altogether after 800 years. So, we must allow researchers, scholars, they investigate into everything, every phenomenon -- God, universe, human beings, history and civilization. Why should we stop that? I am not saying that it didn't happen at all. This is not that judgment that I am passing here. I said, in my second question, granted this happened, what does it have to do with the Palestinian people? AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): This is a serious question. There are two dimensions. In the first question... QUESTION: Let me just -- let me pursue this a bit further. It is difficult to have a scientific discussion if there isn't at least some basis, some empirical basis, some agreement about what the facts are. So calling for research into the facts when the facts are so well established represents for many a challenging of the facts themselves and a denial that something terrible occurred in Europe in those years. (APPLAUSE) Let me move on to... AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Allow me. After all, you are free to interpret what you want from what I say. But what I am saying I'm saying with full clarity. In the first question I'm trying to actually uphold the rights of European scholars. In the field of science and research I'm asking, there is nothing known as absolute. There is nothing sufficiently done. Not in physics for certain. There has been more research on physics than it has on the Holocaust, but we still continue to do research on physics. There is nothing wrong with doing it. This is what man wants. They want to approach a topic from different points of view. Scientists want to do that. Especially an issue that has become the foundation of so many other political developments that have unfolded in the Middle East in the past 60 years. Why do we stop it altogether? You have to have a justified reason for it. The fact that it was researched sufficiently in the past is not a sufficient justification in my mind. QUESTION: Mr. President, another student asks -- Iranian women are now denied basic human rights and your government has imposed draconian punishments, including execution on Iranian citizens who are homosexuals. Why are you doing those things? AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Freedoms in Iran are genuine, true freedoms. Iranian people are free. Women in Iran enjoy the highest levels of freedom. We have two deputy -- two vice presidents that are female, at the highest levels of specialty, specialized fields. In our parliament and our government and our universities, they're present. In our biotechnological fields, our technological fields, there are hundreds of women scientists that are active -- in the political realm as well. It's not -- it's wrong for some governments, when they disagree with another government, to, sort of, try to spread lies that distort the full truth. Our nation is free. It has the highest level of participation in elections, in Iran. Eighty percent, ninety percent of the people turn out for votes during the elections, half of which, over half of which are women. So how can we say that women are not free? Is that the entire truth? But as for the executions, I'd like to raise two questions. If someone comes and establishes a network for illicit drug trafficking that affects the youth in Iran, Turkey, Europe, the United States, by introducing these illicit drugs and destroys them, would you ever reward them? People who lead the lives -- cause the deterioration of the lives of hundreds of millions of youth around the world, including in Iran, can we have any sympathy to them? Don't you have capital punishment in the United States? You do, too. (APPLAUSE) AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In Iran, too, there's capital punishment for illicit drug traffickers, for people who violated the rights of people. If somebody takes up a gun, goes into a house, kills a group of people there, and then tries to take ransom, how would you confront them in Iran -- or in the United States? Would you reward them? Can a physician allow microbes symbolically speaking to spread across a nation? We have laws. People who violate the public rights of the people by using guns, killing people, creating insecurity, sells drugs, distribute drugs at a high level are sentenced to execution in Iran. And some of these punishments, very few, are carried in the public eye, before the public eye. It's a law, based on democratic principles. You use injections and microbes to kill these people, and they, they're executed or they're hung. But the end result is killing. QUESTION: Mr. President, the question isn't about criminal and drug smugglers. The question was about sexual preference and women. (APPLAUSE) AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country. (LAUGHTER) We don't have that in our country. (AUDIENCE BOOING) AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have it. (LAUGHTER) But, as for women, maybe you think that being a woman is a crime. It's not a crime to be a woman. AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Women are the best creatures created by God. They represent the kindness, the beauty that God instills in them. Women are respected in Iran. In Iran, every family who is given a girl -- is given -- in every Iranian family who has a girl, they are 10 times happier than having a son. Women are respected more than men are. They are exempt from many responsibilities. Many of the legal responsibilities rest on the shoulders of men in our society because of the respect, culturally given, to women, to the future mothers. In Iranian culture, men and sons and girls constantly kiss the hands of their mothers as a sign of respect, respect for women. And we are proud of this culture. QUESTION: Mr. President, I have two questions which I'll put together. One is, what did you hope to accomplish by speaking at Columbia today? And the second is, what would you have said if you were permitted to visit the site of the September 11th tragedy? AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Well, here, I'm your guest. I've been invited by Columbia, an official invitation given for me to come here. But I do want to say something here. In Iran, when you invite a guest, you respect them. This is our tradition, required by our culture. And I know that American people have that culture, as well. Last year, I wanted to go to the site of the September 11th tragedy to show respect to the victims of the tragedy, to show my sympathy with their families. But our plans got overextended. We were involved in negotiations and meetings until midnight. And they said it would be very difficult to go visit the site at that late hour of the night. So, I told my friends then that they need to plan this for the following year so that I can go and visit the site and to show my respects. Regretfully, some groups had very strong reactions, very bad reactions. It's bad for someone to prevent someone to show sympathy to the families of the victims of the September 11 event -- tragic event. This is a respect from my side. Somebody told me this is an insult. I said, "What are you saying? This is my way of showing my respect. Why would you think that?" Thinking like that, how do you expect to manage the world and world affairs? AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Don't you think that a lot of problems in the world come from the way you look at issues because of this kind of way of thinking, because of this sort of pessimistic approach toward a lot of people, because of a certain level of selfishness, self-absorption that needs to be put aside so that we can show respect to everyone, to allow an environment for friendship to grow, to allow all nations to talk with one another and move toward peace? What was the second question? I wanted to speak with the press. The September 11th tragic event was a huge event. It led to a lot of many other events afterwards. After 9/11 Afghanistan was occupied, and then Iraq was occupied. And for six years in our region there is insecurity, terror and fear. If the root causes of 9/11 are examined properly -- why it was happened, what caused it, what were the conditions that led to it, who truly was involved, who was really involved -- and put it all together to understand how to prevent the crisis in Iraq, fix the problem in Afghanistan and Iraq combined. QUESTION: Mr. President, a number of questions have asked about your nuclear program. Why is your government seeking to acquire enriched uranium suitable for nuclear weapons? Will you stop doing so? AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Our nuclear program, first and foremost, operates within the framework of law. And, second, under the inspections of the IAEA. And, thirdly, they are completely peaceful. The technology we have is for enrichment below the level of 5 percent level. AHMADINEJAD: And any level below 5 percent is solely for providing fuel to power plants. Repeated reports by the IAEA explicitly say that there is no indication that Iran has deviated from the peaceful path of its nuclear program. We are all well aware that Iran's nuclear issue is a political issue. It's not a legal issue. The international atomic energy organization -- agency has verified that our activities are for peaceful purposes. But there are two or three powers that think that they have the right to monopolize all science and knowledge. And they expect the Iranian people, the Iranian nation, to turn to others to get fuel, to get science, to get knowledge that's indigenous to itself, to humble itself. And then they would, of course, refrain from giving it to us, too. So we're quite clear what we need. If you have created the fifth generation of atomic bombs and are testing them already, what position are you in to question the peaceful purposes of other people who want nuclear power? We do not believe in nuclear weapons, period. It goes against the whole grain of humanity. (APPLAUSE) So let me just joke -- try to tell a joke here. I think the politicians who are after atomic bombs or are testing them, making them, politically, they are backward, retarded. (APPLAUSE) QUESTION: Mr. President, a final question. I know your time is short and that you need to move on. Is Iran prepared to open broad discussions with the government of the United States? What would Iran hope to achieve in such discussions? How do you see, in the future, a resolution of the points of conflict between the government of the United States and the government of Iran? AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): From the start, we announced that we are ready to negotiate with all countries. AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Since 28 years ago, when our revolution succeeded and we established, we took freedom and democracy that was held at bay by a pro-Western dictatorship. We announced our readiness that besides two countries, we are ready to have friendly relations and talks with all countries of the world. One of those two was the apartheid regime of South Africa, which has been eliminated. And the second was the Zionist regime. For everybody else around the world, we announced that we want to have friendly, brotherly ties. The Iranian nation is a cultured nation. It is a civilized nation. It seeks -- it wants talks and negotiations. It's for it. We believe that in negotiations and talks, everything can be resolved very easily. We don't need threats. We don't need to point bombs or guns. We don't need to get into conflicts if we talk. We have a clear logic about that. We question the way the world is being run and managed today. We believe that it will not lead to viable peace and security for the world, the way it's run today. We have solutions based on humane values and for relations among states. With the U.S. government, too, we will negotiate -- we don't have any issues about that -- under fair, just circumstances with mutual respect on both sides. You saw that in order to help the security of Iraq, we had three rounds of talks with the United States, and last year, before coming to New York, I announced that I am ready in the United Nations to engage in a debate with Mr. Bush, the president of the United States, about critical international issues. AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): So that shows that we want to talk. Having a debate before the all the audience, so the truth is revealed, so that misunderstandings and misperceptions are removed, so that we can find a clear path for brotherly and friendly relations. I think that if the U.S. administration, if the U.S. government puts aside some of its old behaviors, it can actually be a good friend for the Iranian people, for the Iranian nation. For 28 years, they've consistently threatened us, insulted us, prevented our scientific development, every day, under one pretext or another. You all know Saddam, the dictator, was supported by the government of the United States and some European countries in attacking Iran. And he carried out an eight-year war, a criminal war. Over 200,000 Iranians lost their lives. Over 600,000 Iranians were hurt as a result of the war. He used chemical weapons. Thousands of Iranians were victims of chemical weapons that he used against us. Today, Mr. Noble Vinn (ph), who is a reporter, an official reporter, international reporter, who was covering U.N. reports in the U.N. for many years, he is one of the victims of the chemical weapons used by Iraq against us. And since then, we've been under different propaganda, sort of embargoes, economic sanctions, political sanctions. Why? Because we got rid of a dictator? Because we wanted the freedom and democracy that we got for ourselves? That, we can't understand. We think that if the U.S. government recognizes the rights of the Iranian people, respects all nations and extends a hand of friendship with all Iranians, they, too, will see that Iranians will be one of its best friends. AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Would you allow me to thank the audience a moment? Well, there are many things that I would have liked to cover, but I don't want to take your time any further. I was asked: Would I allow the faculty at Columbia and students here to come to Iran? From this platform, I invite Columbia faculty members and students to come and visit Iran, to speak with our university students. You're officially invited. (APPLAUSE) University faculty and students that the university decides, or the student associations choose and select are welcome to come. You're welcome to visit any university that you choose inside Iran. We'll provide you with the list of the universities. There are over 400 universities in our country. And you can choose whichever you want to go and visit. We'll give you the platform. We'll respect you 100 percent. We will have our students sit there and listen to you, speak with you, hear what you have to say. Right now in our universities on a daily basis there are hundreds of meetings like this. They hear, they talk, they ask questions. They welcome it. In the end I'd like to thank Columbia University. I had heard that many politicians in the United States are trained in Columbia University. And there are many people here who believe in the freedom of speech, in clear, frank conversations. I do like to extend my gratitude to the managers here in the United States -- at Columbia University, I apologize -- the people who so well organized this meeting today. AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I'd like to extend my deepest gratitude to the faculty members and the students here. I ask Almighty God to assist all of us to move hand in hand to establish peace and future filled with friendship and justice and brotherhood. Best of luck to all of you. (APPLAUSE) MODERATOR: I'm sorry that President Ahmadinejad's schedule makes it necessary for him to leave before he's been able to answer many of the questions that we have, or even answer some of the ones that we posed to him. (LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE) But I think we can all be pleased that his appearance here demonstrates Columbia's deep commitment to free expression and debate. I want to thank you all for coming to participate. (APPLAUSE) Thank you. END

Special Message from Columbia President Bollinger: Thoughts on Today's Forum (Sep 24, 2007)

Dear fellow members of the Columbia community:

I would like to share a few thoughts about today's appearance ofPresident Ahmadinejad at our World Leaders Forum. I know this is amatter of deep concern for many in our University community andbeyond. I want to say first and foremost how proud I am ofColumbia, especially our students, as we discuss, debate and planfor this highly visible event.

I ask that each of us make special efforts to respect the differentviews people have about the event and to recognize the differentways it affects members of our community. For many reasons, thiswill demand the best of each of us to live up to the best ofColumbia's traditions.

For the School of International and Public Affairs, which developedthe idea for this forum as the commencement to a year-longexamination of 30 years of the Islamic Republic in Iran, this is animportant educational experience for training future leaders toconfront the world as it is -- a world that includes far too manybrutal, anti-democratic and repressive regimes. For the rest of us,this occasion is not only about the speaker but quite centrallyabout us -- about who we are as a nation and what universities canbe in our society.

I would like just to repeat what I have said earlier: It is vitallyimportant for a university to protect the right of our schools, ourdeans and our faculty to create programming for academic purposes.Necessarily, on occasion this will bring us into contact withbeliefs many, most, or even all of us will find offensive and evenodious.

But it should never be thought that merely to listen to ideas wedeplore in any way implies our endorsement of those ideas, or theweakness of our resolve to resist those ideas, or our naiveté aboutthe very real dangers inherent in such ideas. It is a criticalpremise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorablewhen we open the public forum to their voices.

The great majority of student leaders with whom I met last week affirmed their belief that this event, however controversial, isconsistent with the values of academic freedom we share at thecenter of university life. I fully support, indeed I celebrate, theright to peacefully demonstrate and engage in a dialogue about thisevent and this speaker, as I understand a wide coalition of ourstudent groups are planning for today.

That such a forum and suchpublic criticism of President Ahmadinejad's statements and policiescould not safely take place on a university campus in Iran today sharpens the point of what we do here. The kind of freedom thatwill be on display at Columbia has always been and remains todayour nation's most potent weapon against repressive regimeseverywhere in the world. This is the power and example of Americaat its best.

Sincerely,

Lee C. Bollinger

President Lee C. Bollinger's Introductory Remarks at SIPA-World Leaders Forum with President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Sept. 24, 2007

I would like to begin by thanking Dean John Coatsworth and Professor Richard Bulliet for their work in organizing this event and for their commitment to the role of the School of International and Public Affairs and its role in training future leaders in world affairs. If today proves anything it will be that there is an enormous amount of work ahead for all of us. This is just one of many events on Iran that will run throughout this academic year, all to help us better understand this critical and complex nation in today’s geopolitics.

Before speaking directly to the current President of Iran, I have a few critically important points to emphasize.

First, since 2003, the World Leaders Forum has advanced Columbia’s longstanding tradition of serving as a major forum for robust debate, especially on global issues. 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.

Second, to those who believe that this event never should have happened, that it is inappropriate for the University to conduct such an event, I want to say that I understand your perspective and respect it as reasonable. The scope of free speech and academic freedom should itself always be open to further debate. As one of the more famous quotations about free speech goes, it is “an experiment, as all life is an experiment.” I want to say, however, as forcefully as I can, that this is the right thing to do and, indeed, it is required by existing norms of free speech, the American university, and Columbia itself.

Third, to those among us who experience hurt and pain as a result of this day, I say on behalf of all of us we are sorry and wish to do what we can to alleviate it.

Fourth, to be clear on another matter - this event has nothing whatsoever to do with any “rights” of the speaker but only with our rights to listen and speak. We do it for ourselves. We do it in the great tradition of openness that has defined this nation for many decades now. We need to understand the world we live in, neither neglecting its glories nor shrinking from its threats and dangers. It is consistent with the idea that one should know thine enemies, to have the intellectual and emotional courage to confront the mind of evil and to prepare ourselves to act with the right temperament. In the moment, the arguments for free speech will never seem to match the power of the arguments against, but what we must remember is that this is precisely because free speech asks us to exercise extraordinary self- restraint against the very natural but often counter-productive impulses that lead us to retreat from engagement with ideas we dislike and fear. In this lies the genius of the American idea of free speech. Lastly, in universities, we have a deep and almost single-minded commitment to pursue the truth. We do not have access to the levers of power. We cannot make war or peace. We can only make minds. And to do this we must have the most full freedom of inquiry. Let me now turn to Mr. Ahmadinejad.

THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN ON SCHOLARS, JOURNALISTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES

Over the last two weeks, your government has released Dr. Haleh Esfandiari and Parnaz Axima; and just two days ago Kian Tajbakhsh, a graduate of Columbia with a PhD in urban planning. While our community is relieved to learn of his release on bail, Dr. Tajbakhsh remains in Teheran, under house arrest, and he still does not know whether he will be charged with a crime or allowed to leave the country. Let me say this for the record, I call on the President today to ensure that Kian Tajbaksh will be free to travel out of Iran as he wishes. Let me also report today that we are extending an offer to Dr. Tajbaksh to join our faculty as a visiting professor in urban planning here at his Alma Mater, in our Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation. And we hope he will be able to join us next semester.

The arrest and imprisonment of these Iranian Americans for no good reason is not only unjustified, it runs completely counter to the very values that allow today’s speaker to even appear on this campus.

But at least they are alive.

According to Amnesty International, 210 people have been executed in Iran so far this year – 21 of them on the morning of September 5th alone. This annual total includes at least two children – further proof, as Human Rights Watch puts it, that Iran leads the world in executing minors.

There is more.

Iran hanged up to 30 people this past July and August during a widely reported suppression of efforts to establish a more open, democratic society in Iran. Many of these executions were carried out in public view, a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Iran is a party.

These executions and others have coincided with a wider crackdown on student activists and academics accused of trying to foment a so-called “soft revolution”. This has included jailing and forced retirements of scholars. As Dr. Esfandiari said in a broadcast interview since her release, she was held in solitary confinement for 105 days because the government “believes that the United States . . . is planning a Velvet Revolution” in Iran.

In this very room last year we learned something about Velvet Revolutions from Vaclav Havel. And we will likely hear the same from our World Leaders Forum speaker this evening – President Michelle Bachelet Jeria of Chile. Both of their extraordinary stories remind us that there are not enough prisons to prevent an entire society that wants its freedom from achieving it.

We at this university have not been shy to protest and challenge the failures of our own government to live by these values; and we won’t be shy in criticizing yours. Let’s, then, be clear at the beginning, Mr. President you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator.

And so I ask you:

Why have women, members of the Baha’i faith, homosexuals and so many of our academic colleagues become targets of persecution in your country?

Why in a letter last week to the Secretary General of the UN did Akbar Gangi, Iran’s leading political dissident, and over 300 public intellectuals, writers and Nobel Laureates express such grave concern that your inflamed dispute with the West is distracting the world’s attention from the intolerable conditions your regime has created within Iran? In particular, the use of the Press Law to ban writers for criticizing the ruling system.

Why are you so afraid of Iranian citizens expressing their opinions for change?

In our country, you are interviewed by our press and asked that you to speak here today. And while my colleague at the Law School Michael Dorf spoke to Radio Free Europe [sic, Voice of America] viewers in Iran a short while ago on the tenets of freedom of speech in this country, I propose going further than that. Let me lead a delegation of students and faculty from Columbia to address your university about free speech, with the same freedom we afford you today? Will you do that?

THE DENIAL OF THE HOLOCAUST

In a December 2005 state television broadcast, you described the Holocaust as a “fabricated” “legend.” One year later, you held a two-day conference of Holocaust deniers.

For the illiterate and ignorant, this is dangerous propaganda. When you come to a place like this, this makes you, quite simply, ridiculous. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.

You should know that Columbia is a world center of Jewish studies and now, in partnership with the YIVO Institute, of Holocaust studies. Since the 1930s, we’ve provided an intellectual home for countless Holocaust refugees and survivors and their children and grandchildren. The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history. Because of this, and for many other reasons, your absurd comments about the “debate” over the Holocaust both defy historical truth and make all of us who continue to fear humanity’s capacity for evil shudder at this closure of memory, which is always virtue’s first line of defense.

Will you cease this outrage?

THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL

Twelve days ago, you said that the state of Israel “cannot continue its life.” This echoed a number of inflammatory statements you have delivered in the last two years, including in October 2005 when you said that Israel should be “wiped off the map.”

Columbia has over 800 alumni currently living in Israel. As an institution we have deep ties with our colleagues there. I personally have spoken out in the most forceful terms against proposals to boycott Israeli scholars and universities, saying that such boycotts might as well include Columbia. More than 400 college and university presidents in this country have joined in that statement. My question, then, is: Do you plan on wiping us off the map, too?

FUNDING TERRORISM

According to reports by the Council on Foreign Relations, it’s well documented that Iran is a state sponsor of terror that funds such violent group as the Lebanese Hezbollah, which Iran helped organize in the 1980s, the Palestinian Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. While your predecessor government was instrumental in providing the US with intelligence and base support in its 2001 campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan, your government is now undermining American troops in Iraq by funding, arming, and providing safe transit to insurgent leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr and his forces.

There are a number of reports that also link your government with Syria’s efforts to destabalize the fledgling Lebanese government through violence and political assassination. My question is this: Why do you support well-documented terrorist organizations that continue to strike at peace and democracy in the Middle East, destroying lives and civil society in the region?

PROXY WAR AGAINST U.S. TROOPS IN IRAQ

In a briefing before the National Press Club earlier this month, General David Petraeus reported that arms supplies from Iran, including 240mm rockets and explosively formed projectiles, are contributing to “a sophistication of attacks that would by no means be possible without Iranian support.”

A number of Columbia graduates and current students are among the brave members of our military who are serving or have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. They, like other Americans with sons, daughters, fathers, husbands and wives serving in combat, rightly see your government as the enemy.

Can you tell them and us why Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq by arming Shi’a militia targeting and killing U.S. troops?

FINALLY, IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM AND INTERNATIONAL SANCTIONS

This week the United Nations Security Council is contemplating expanding sanctions for a third time because of your government’s refusal to suspend its uranium-enrichment program. You continue to defy this world body by claiming a right to develop peaceful nuclear power, but this hardly withstands scrutiny when you continue to issue military threats to neighbors. Last week, French President Sarkozy made clear his lost patience with your stall tactics; and even Russia and China have shown concern.

Why does your country continue to refuse to adhere to international standards for nuclear weapons verification in defiance of agreements that you have made with the UN nuclear agency? And why have you chosen to make the people of your country vulnerable to the effects of international economic sanctions and threaten to engulf the world with nuclear annihilation? Let me close with this comment. Frankly, and in all candor, Mr. President, I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions. But your avoiding them will in itself be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mindset that characterizes so much of what you say and do. Fortunately, I am told by experts on your country, that this only further undermines your position in Iran with all the many good-hearted, intelligent citizens there.

A year ago, I am reliably told, your preposterous and belligerent statements in this country (as in your meeting at the Council on Foreign Relations) so embarrassed sensible Iranian citizens that this led to your party’s defeat in the December mayoral elections. May this do that and more.

I am only a professor, who is also a university president, and today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for. I only wish I could do better.