"all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator"

At American Digest, a line-up or reactions to Ahmadinejad's speech and Columbia University President Bolliger's surprisingly critical introduction.
I thought it was typical American leftward university PC'ism to have invited the Iranian hustler. The line that all the world's problems are either America's (Mcbushitler) fault or made worse by her intervention (though we saw during the 90's how well NON-intervention worked out). I was actually surprised that the political right made such a stink, it's so expected of this part of the contemporary culture. I felt that if it is opposed by the political right, then that made inviting Ahmadinejad all the more righteous to a left leaning institution. It looked to me that after the invite was delivered, it became apparent that perhaps it wasn't the wisest move. There could have been one big reason, there could have been several smaller reasons.
Maybe the realization that the U S Military is still looked at with respect by the students, even if they hate the commander-in-chief. Maybe the wealth of their parents found the economically foolish attitude that favors enemies of the nation to be beyond stupid.
It was a Columbia U student group that invited the Minutemen to speak several months ago, and then the rest of the student body violently trashed their "right" to speak freely without much administration concern. It is righteous if it is anti-right. Unless it's just not right.
Whatever the reason, Columbia extended an invitation to speak. But when the invitee arrived, Columbia Chancellor Bollinger gave the Iranian leader a verbal thrashing that was just plain rude. I would have no problem if the president were allowed to speak and then in the q & a was completely toasted with the questions. It's not that difficult to reveal a lying hypocrite and bully.
Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch , quoting an AP story, thinks Bollinger looks good and Ahmadinejad looks ignorant and wimpish. Gateway Pundit , live blogging the speech, thinks the Columbia audience took a hit, looking like typical collegiate, immature morons.

"SO FAR... Not a peep from the audience. Not one peep!
The audience is his to lose. He has them in the palm of his hand.
They are cheering him on now!
Good Lord!
* * * * *

They are cheering the genocide promoter again.
This country is in worse shape than we realized.
Now, Ahmadinejad is lying about the treatment of non-Muslims in Iran.
(More applause)
...
Mahmoud is explaining that the Iranian nation is a victim of terrorism.
Mahmoud says his government was the first to fight terrorism.
How sad... He is shifting the blame for terrorism on the US and the audience is eating this crap with serving spoons.
How very sad.
The schools in this country are failing miserably.

Mahmoud is pushing for more research on the Holocaust and the audience is not saying a word- not a peep.

"Serendip concentrates more on his comments about gays and women.

"In Iran we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. We don’t have that in our country. In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who has told you that we have it."
...
But as for women, maybe you think that maybe being a woman is a crime. It’s not a crime to be a woman. Women are the best creatures created by God. They represent the kindness, the beauty that God instills in them. Women are respected in Iran."

We in the U S set ourselves up for this kind of circus by trying to continue the charade of being "fair to all." You can't on the one hand try to perpetuate that concept (whether it's actually possible or not) and on the other derogate Ahmadinejad's position as President of a major Middle Eastern power. If one invite's another to one's house, one shant insult the other once the other arrives. Now, whether you SHOULD have invited him in the first place is an entirely different matter.

"The Perfect Moral Storm of Our Times"

The two opening paragraphs from the bio provided at his website will suffice...

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., serves as the ninth president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary-the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world.
Dr. Mohler has been recognized by such influential publications as Time and Christianity Today as a leader among American evangelicals. In fact, Time.com called him the "reigning intellectual of the evangelical movement in the U.S".

Dr. Mohler didn't invent the idea of being able to predict homosexuality in an unborn child, or even instigate the conversation about the possibility of being able to re-direct genetic tendencies toward a heterosexual life. In the past, I've been fairly familiar with the Southern Baptist Convention. However, I've never heard of Dr. Mohler, and can't affirm the credentials that Time, Inc would bestow.
But a recent (Mar 14) Mohler-authored article, titled, Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It? has received some attention for bringing to light some recent research into the possibility of biological causations of homosexuality and the reactions of others writers. And it's not just the "causations" that has folks buzzing about...the researchers think they may soon be able to reverse the unborn's tendencies.

For some time now, scientists have been looking for a genetic or hormonal cause of sexual orientation. Thus far, no "gay gene" has been found -- at least not in terms of incontrovertible and accepted science. Yet, it is now claimed that a growing body of evidence indicates that biological factors may at least contribute to sexual orientation.
The most interesting research along these lines relates to the study of sheep. Scientists at the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station are conducting research into the sexual orientation of sheep through "sexual partner preference testing."

The article continues with descriptions of the research on rams that show that only a bare majority of male sheep are entirely hetero, and the cause is not environmental.
The question of course, is - "does this make homosexuality natural, and if natural, then "normal?" - and if natural and normal, then morally acceptable?" The answer may be for each parent to answer. If you KNEW that, if you do nothing, your still unborn son would mature with a sexual preference for other men, would you interfere if you could? It is already perfectly legal, with the help of many past gay activists (bedroom privacy), for the mother to abort that child for that reason. Mohler's article quotes another magazine article that puts it this way...

"A woman is told that her unborn baby boy is gay. This woman and her husband consider themselves to be liberal and tolerant of homosexuality. But this is not about homosexuality now; it is about their baby boy. The woman is then told that a hormone patch on her abdomen will "reverse the sexual orientation inscribed in his chromosomes." The Sunday Times [London] predicts that such a patch should be available for use on humans within the decade. Will she use it?"

A question I can't find addressed anywhere is, "Would future parents face legal challenges from their children if they could have changed their child's homosexual tendency, but didn't?"
A search for some other opinions on all of this shed light on why the experiments center on sheep. I found this at Exodus International, first quoting an earthtimes.org. item... (my emphasis)

NEW YORK: Experiments conducted by scientists to change the sexuality of homosexual sheep have drawn ire from gay and lesbian activists. They are afraid the efforts could lead to extinction of homosexuality in humans.
The experiments have been approved by the government as farmers complained they are financially affected when one in 10 rams, on average, is gay. After extensive studies of the brains of the homosexual rams, scientists at the Oregon State University have been able to identify the processes that influence their sexual orientation.

This article actually makes the point that it's the homosexual rights activists that don't like the direction to which this research is heading, but they are also the ones who've been demanding that homosexuality be shown to be biologically based.

The scientists said their research is confined to reducing or eliminating gay sheep. Charles Roselli, a biologist leading the research team, said sexuality has been an under-studied subject because of political concerns.
"It's a touchy issue. In fact, several studies have shown that people who believe homosexuality is biologically based are less homophobic than people who think that this orientation is acquired," he said.

The article by Dr. Mohler is well done and highly recommended. He lists important reminders for all Christians, including that all of us are created in God's image, and a biological explanation for the temptation toward homosexual relationships does nothing to change that. Nor does it change the sinful nature of homosexuality. As a favorite pastor once told me, "No one ever went to hell because he was a homosexual. If ever there was a homosexual that was sent to hell, it was because he did not know Jesus Christ as his personal saviour. The same reason anyone else was ever sent there."


Almost, but not quite off topic, Dr. Mohler also brings up another related ethical dilemma, that of "Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis." So far it is of concern only to those utilizing in-vitro fertilization (IVF). Another search led me to a 28 page pdf that discusses the genetic detection procedure in some detail.
All is great stuff, sure to keep you thinking well into the next decade, and beyond.