text:
- My name is Brandon. I'm a graphic artist. This site is full of samples of work that have been approved over the years, mostly graphic tees and logos, etc. You can read a little more about me on the profile page , see what I'm working on at Dribbble, and follow me on Twitter to keep up with daily happenings.
Sometimes I write longer blog posts. I call them articles. You can read those here.
@brandonrike: Finally. PayPal is pretty.(about 1 day ago)
@brandonrike: @Robdobi All of these editorials are so great, man. Keep up the fantastic work!(about 5 days ago)
@brandonrike: @peteholmes ( Lou-Ah-Vull )(about 6 days ago)
@brandonrike: @ndokuley @deathtostock Glad you realize that that IS the most important part of the article. #staysharp(about 7 days ago)
@brandonrike: I recently shared my thoughts on a freelance lifestyle with @deathtostock Check it out: http://t.co/JtI1s50gBj(about 8 days ago)
- Anti-Expert (8)
- Articles (20)
- Betray The Institution (10)
- Books (5)
- Buy My Stuff (21)
- Clothing Labels (5)
- Columbus (5)
- Dark Collar (5)
- Documentaries (9)
- Dribbble (5)
- Events (14)
- Found (1)
- Freelance (7)
- How I Work (34)
- Illustration (10)
- Illustrator (6)
- Inspiration (14)
- Interviews (7)
- Launch (10)
- Lettering (11)
- Logos (6)
- My Work (33)
- Ohio (16)
- Opinion (27)
- Philosophy (31)
- Photography (2)
- Photoshop (1)
- Plug (26)
- Podcasts (2)
- Posters (11)
- Press (12)
- Printing (5)
- Process (18)
- Products (18)
- Promotions (4)
- Ramblings (26)
- Recommendations (15)
- Respect (6)
- Satisfied Customer (1)
- Self Promotion (28)
- Site (9)
- Skillshare (4)
- Speaking (6)
- Talks (6)
- The Racing Machetes (5)
- Thread Council (1)
- Tutorial (5)
- Typography (13)
- Uncategorized (5)
- Update (7)
- Vector (4)
- Videos (15)
- Webstore (3)
- WMC Fest (9)
- Workflow (16)
Recent Posts
- New Work Added
- Radio Silence
- Miller High Life x Harley – Artist Series
- Good Reviews
- Opinions on a Career In Graphic Design
- My Skillshare Lettering Class
- Simplicity Tee
- Class is Open!
- My Skillshare Class
- My talk from WMC Fest
- Balance, Challenges, and Happiness
- Lessons Of The Grind
- Thread Council
- Underoath Farewell Poster
- A Year Forward
- Machete Monday!
- My Talk At SAA
- Dark Collar Branding Elements
- Thank You Pagebreak Podcast
- SAA Conversations Video
Category Archives: Articles
Opinions on a Career In Graphic Design
A few months ago, a high school senior, Samantha Cleveland, sent me a list of interview questions. Samantha is interested in a career in graphic design, and I answered as honestly as I could. I wrote quite a bit, so … Continue reading
Balance, Challenges, and Happiness
Two media outlets caught up with me last week – both inquiring about similar topics. I sat down over Google Hangout with Joel Beukelman and Aaron Irizarry of The Blnce Podcast. They referenced my previous article, "Lessons Of The Grind," … Continue reading
Lessons Of The Grind
After doing consistent design work for over a decade, I've observed many phases of the career. I've also come to my own conclusions and basic philosophy, that I've also watched evolve over time. Anything that I thought I knew would … Continue reading
A Year Forward
As the years move on, each go a bit faster. The perception that I had of one year as a child, an entire lifetime, becomes a little bit more visible, and tangible. Statements like "This year, I intend to…" become … Continue reading
Thank You Pagebreak Podcast
Lately, I've been scouring the internets for a good collection of Podcasts to listen to while I work. One of the podcasts that I came across, last week actually, was Pagebreak Podcast. So imagine my delight when I check my … Continue reading
Fight To Stay Excited
For a recent talk, while compiling slides, I found myself coming up with quick phrases that I would then elaborate upon. Many of these could be considered the title of the specific tangent, much like the title of a blog … Continue reading
Speak The Truth
It's easy to look at portions of a life in five and ten year increments. Many refer to their "five-year plan" or "their twenties," etc. We often block our lives together in chunks, and it's easiest to define ourselves by … Continue reading
Valuing The Journey
As my time in the the design industry marches on, and as I continue to pile more and more diverse projects onto my resume, I've attained certain viewpoints on the industry as a whole, and on the thinking behind what … Continue reading
VSCO x RIKE
I am completely thrilled to be featured by Visual Supply Co, one of the coolest new collection of resources for creatives. I love the entire vibe and philosophy behind VSCO, and am honored to be asked a few interview questions … Continue reading


text:
I've never been a big fan of thuggery, on the court. I think the way the game evolved, during the heyday of the Bad Boys, from Detroit, was not the way the game was intended to be played. That being said, everybody knows that once you're in the playoffs, there should be no easy layups.
So, as I watched D. Wade limp his way through Game 4, with back spasms, which clearly limited his outside shooting accuracy, I couldn't help but think that, simply put, if he's on, the Hawks likely lose that game. Which begs the unsightly question, "should the Hawks go "all Detroit" on Wade" in Game 5, everytime he attacks the basket? You know he's going to recklessly attack the hoop. You know he hits the floor 10 times a game. So does Zaza, or Horford, put a little extra oomph into every foul they give? I'm not saying be dirty or cheap (which actually would be "going Bad Boy" on him), but how valuable would it be if Wade just wasn't able to suck it up and play at his usual, ridiculous level?
Not saying, more asking for opinions…..
That being covered, even if he's on the floor for the full game, it doesn't appear likely that he's going to be at 100%. Now he's a warrior, and, not unlike some of Jordan's biggest playoff games, he's capable of limping his way through a historic performance. Given the motivation that would provide for his teammates, it's all that much more important that the Hawks do everything they can to limit his having a big game.
Because as far as I can tell, this series has come down to two Hawks' wins, when Wade has been off, and two Wade wins.
As I mentioned the other day, after the Hawks took down Game 4, there's a part of me that wonders if the ultimate winner of this series is the team who screws up less. This hasn't been a very pretty series, and neither team has the look of a squad ready to seize this series, and take momentum into a Round 2 match up with a Cavs team that looks certain to play in the NBA Finals.
Again, with no outside help, for either the roster or the coaching staff, it's down to pride and fortitude, and an unwillingness to yield another game at home.
Crowd should be full tilt tonight, with the series tied at two apiece. Wade looks iffy. No real excuse for the Hawks to lose this game, but you probably could have made the same argument going into Game 2, so we all get to watch, from the stands, or on the tube.
Me, I'll be there, with some of the fellas (thanks to Jhan AND doc; you guys know….).
I'll try to join in with the post-game assessment, but I'm confident that the usual suspects will have summarized the proceedings, whatever they end up being, quite well.
Go Hawks!!!!!!!
April 29th, 2009
7:01 pm
One hr away from crunch time. Time to Rock and Roll.
April 29th, 2009
10:27 pm
I noticed the part you mentioned with Wade hitting the floor 10 times a game. According to Rod (or is it Sam?), that's the sign of a klutz. Hmmmm.
Wade is going to play well, and is playing well currently. I still think the series comes down to whether we shut down Wade's supporting cast or not. We don't have a supporting cast, simply because we don't have a superstar. But we have an all-star and some very good players.
April 29th, 2009
11:13 pm
Great win!
Highlights include the Hawks having a grand total of only 5 turnovers.
JJ going to the line 15 times, and hitting on 12 of those.
Flip Murray catching fire and leading the 2nd unit.
Zaza being himself.
Josh Smith having 0 turnovers.
Woody using his bench.
Solo producing.
April 29th, 2009
11:14 pm
April 29th, 2009
11:27 pm
Ray you forgot turn overs for the entire team, free throw shooting and rebounds. What a fun game.
April 29th, 2009
11:37 pm
Ray, Man I wish Marvin was healthy. Another player whose game is made for the playoffs, willing to take hard fouls to get to the line. That is why ZaZa is so important to this team. He sets the toughness tone. I hope we don't trade him.
Trashing Wade and his klutz is a little unfair. Agressive basketball and giving up your body is what it is all about.
Best part about our team is Flip, Evans, JJ are starting to drive more. I credit Marvin and ZaZa for a lot of this. If JJ would get more physical and drive more to get the foul we might even scare Clev. What do you think?
April 29th, 2009
11:48 pm
Hello?! Hawks have been playing dirty, scrappy basketball since Game 1. And clowns like Josh Smith are only trying to escalate the intensity with unsportsmanlike conduct. The refs are obviously calling it in Atlanta's favor too…
April 29th, 2009
11:54 pm
Agreed. The part about Wade was in referrence to the guys who come on here and say that Marvin falls down 10 times a game. They say he's klutzy because of that. Yet Wade does the same thing, for the same reason. I was pointing out the hypocrisy in criticizing Marvin for the very same thing when all he's trying to do is play aggressive, draw fouls, etc.
April 29th, 2009
11:56 pm
Now, of course, the same sources will no doubt tell me that I'm comparing Marvin to Wade in regard to talent, and what not. I'm not, but they'll say I'm saying they are the same caliber of player, when clearly I am NOT saying that.
What I AM saying is that both guys are willing to drive to the basket and take contact, much of what KevinA is already saying.
But no doubt this statement will get taken out of context… sigh…
April 30th, 2009
12:25 am
I also would not even think of compareing Wade and Marvin. When we were hurt Marvin displayed the stones to put the team on his back and drive to the hoop. falling down all the way. Knocked down would be the point. We have played a much tougher style of ball the last month. Tonight even Bibby took it to the hole. I'm just saying if we play like this next year I can pencil in 55-60 wins. While not perfect – an improvement. One more key big to cover injury and a possible Chill return, would make us a deep team.
As already commented the team seems to be willling to trust each other and we see little of the JJ iso.
The JJ iso was not that long ago. We have grown up quickly, lately. All good news.
April 30th, 2009
1:56 am
Great game.
Hope Horford's alright.
Hope the Hawks bring the same urgency+intensity on Friday in Miami.
Good stuff Hawks!
April 30th, 2009
9:30 am
I know Marvin gets discounted among many bloggers in the city, but I was most impressed with the way the Hawks played without 2 starters in the second half. I truly expected a nail-biter after Horford went down. Boy, was I pleasantly surprised that we were able to keep our foot on the gas and pretty much coast to a victory. This has been a strange, strange series. I bet that there have not been any (certainly not many) lead changes after the first quarter in the first five games. That's especially bizarre in a 4-5 match-up between division foes. I hope Smith is ready to be head-hunted Friday night. I'm thinking that there are some voodoo dolls with a little #5 jersey being produced as we speak in non-tourists neighborhoods in Miami.
April 30th, 2009
9:52 am
I think the Hawks finally realize how good they are….thank goodness!! They have some of the best talent in the league but were unable to show it the last couple of years despite making the playoffs. Each player brings unique skills and if you feed off their strong points and strenghs, it will be easy to utilize their skills to the teams advantage, win big and win consistently (case in point/two starters out last night; Horford gets banged up and Williams is in street clothes; no big deal; who cares. result=15 point Hawks blowout win). Do you get my point. The best is yet to come and the stage is set for the Hawks to close out the Heat and bring on the King. LaBron James and the Cavs are up next. Stay tuned. There is a reason David Stern was at Phillips Arena last night. Stern knows which is the best game in town and knows where the best highlights in the league come from. Absolutely. They come from the Highlight Factory. Where else.
April 30th, 2009
11:13 am
Big Ray,
Come on man. First of all Wade knows how to fall. Believe it or not, there is an art to falling after contact. D. Wade does it on purpose to get calls. Marvin does it because he is clumsy. Marvin goes to the hole totally out of control, and can not finish, Wade is totally under control. Funny how you guys continue to bring up the things I said about Marvin, but won't admit that they are true. He is injured because he is clumsy. He had a worse year this year statistically than last year, but you guys say he is better. I told you I would take 15 other forwards in the league over him, including Trevor Ariza, and somebody told me I was crazy. Who looks crazy now. Hurt or not. He is a bust. Plain and simple! If he plays, he is just another body. That's it.
April 30th, 2009
5:38 pm
ando, did they follow your script well enough?

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Our 10 most popular recipes for the month delivered right to your inbox!
In my CPAP's humidifier I'm supposed to use distilled water, and I'm just wondering if it's necessary to keep the container in the fridge, or would it be okay to keep it in my room?
Nope, no refrigeration required.
© RDA Enthusiast Brands, LLC 2014


text:
Loved the Burns Art apartment I stayed at in Dusseldorf during the closing stages of the World Cup football competition. On arrival you check in at reception on Bahnhofstrasse which is only a couple of blocks away. I believe you can eat breakfast there if you want to but I was going for the full self-catering option at around £40... More
- Reservation Options:
- TripAdvisor is proud to partner with Booking.com, Priceline, Travelocity, Hotel.de and Odigeo so you can book your Burns Art Hotel Duesseldorf reservations with confidence. We help millions of travelers each month to find the perfect hotel for both vacation and business trips, always with the best discounts and special offers.
- Also Known As:
- Burns Art düsseldorf


text:
Herceg Novi, Montenegro Vacations - Travel guide to Herceg Novi, Montenegro accommodations and vacation packages. Visit Herceg Novi, Montenegro for getaways and adventure travel. Plan your Herceg Novi, Montenegro vacation today.
|Page:1 of 1
|Sort By:
Herceg Novi, Montenegro Youth Hostels - Book your stay at the Mediteran,a Montenegro 3 star hotel in Herceg Novi,a popular destination on the Bay
Herceg Novi, Montenegro Youth Hostels - Tomanovic Guest House offers the perfect base for exploring Herceg Novi while providing a tranquil environment with superb sea views of the Bay of Kotor.
Igalo, Herceg Novi, Montenegro Vacation Rentals - Studio 2 persons. Fully equipped kitchen, bathroom, Air condition, TV, Terrace, Built 2006, Bed Linens and towels provided, steps to beach, restaurants, shops, montenegrorental,com, Airport transport ...
Budva, Montenegro Vacation Rentals - We offer accommodation in comfortable and functional studios and apartments with a separate bedroom (double bed) with fully equipped kitchen, dining room, living room, bathroom. Accommodation and rent...
Kolasin, Montenegro Horseback Riding - Montenegro, the only ecological country, in the world famous for its unspoiled nature on its small area has 5 national parks, numerous lakes and river flows, various mountain ranges, in the opinion of many people is one of the most beautiful countrie
Herceg Novi, Montenegro Shuttle Services - Transfer-Montenegro is a specialized for transfer service in Dubrovnik area and Montenegro. Fast, secure and efficient "door-to-door" transfer service. With competetive rates for individual or group transfer
Ulcinj, Montenegro Bed & Breakfasts - Welcome to one of the most comfortable accommodation in Ulcinj. Sars apartments represent an real holiday accommodation settled in beautifuly decorated garden, providing amenities which are not usual for an private accommodation. We mostly recomend S
Ulcinj, Montenegro Bed & Breakfasts - Extra lux apartments tati ulcinj montenegro
Ulcinj, Montenegro Vacation Rentals - "Casa Mavri" in Spanish or Italian means House of Mavri. Each morning the Adriatic sea present to the guests of Casa Mavri new spectacularly view, new natural landscape. The unique location of the...
Coast, Montenegro Bed & Breakfasts - Apartments are located in the vicinity of the Long beach, distanced from the sea foam in about 10 minutes-walk. If You want to liberate your vacation from all stressing situations, to be too far and in the same time and too close to the beach and to


text:
Listening to 2 sommeliers from 15 restaurant at #accesszone #LIWF
Must hunt down @danielalagar's Alivion on @nakedwines
Ryan O'Connell from O' Vineyards @mroconnell at #LIWF
Lovely to meet @sipswooshspit at #LIWF
Disrupt! wine is a new wine blend from #accesszone: here's draft 1 of the label. A truly "social" wine #LIWF
About to enjoy the final stage of the Vrazon/Thierry's blend
Talking to Nicole Rolet at #accesszone of #LIWF
Venue for #Laithwaites tasting today was impressive: Altitude360 at Millbank Tower. A few decent wines too (but will have to tweet about those later)…
Average person perceives page load time to be 15% slower than it actually is #strangeloop - full article at #Mashable http://on.mash.to/mo7F6M
Just down from my office, the press, police & public swarm around the Middleton's hotel. I need to get out of London… and fast!


text:
His Last Vow spoiler free review
Last night thanks to the lovely people at the BBC I got to watch an early screening of His Last Vow at BAFTA. As you would expect the vast majority of the episode is embargoed which is completely understandable as I would want nothing to ruin your enjoyment but a lot of the really brilliant things I'm not allowed to talk about.
But fear not whilst I adored The Sign of Three this was my favourite of the three - strong story, killer villain and a real emotional rollercoaster. Quintessential Sherlock and my favourite of Moffat's scripts.
So here's a few tidbits:
Quick edit to add two more things I just thought about:


text:
Schizer. Columbia is giving the guy the best forum he could ask for, undeservedly so, as Dean Schizer points out. That said, it's certainly Columbia's right to invite him to speak. I just have never understood why they'd want to.
It's over now. I enjoyed listening to it.
"Mr. Ahmadinejad has proven himself, time and again, to be uninterested in whether his words are true."
Well if that's the standard then you could never invite any politician to speak at a University.
"Although we believe in free and open debate at Columbia and should never suppress points of view (*unless I disgaree with them) we are also committed to academic standards."
Either you believe in free and open expression of ideas of you do not. Of course, any University has the right to invite whoever it wants. However, when your reason for opposing a speaker is that he is a "bad" person with "bad" ideas you lose credibility. It is entirely subjective. It is not a legit reason for denying the invitation.
"It would be deeply regrettable if some misread this invitation as lending prestige or legitimacy to his views."
…well Mr. Schizer why do you assume that allowing the Iranian pres to speak would do that? It might have the opposite effect….and even if people who listened were persuaded by his views…well that's their right.
Bollinger: he has given Ahmadinejad the chance to prove how weak his ideas really are. In the battle of ideas, how can anyone fear being defeated by this buffoon?
If one is confident of his ideas, how can you fear whatever Ahmadinejad might say?
In this competitive world of ideas, we should be glad that there is a platform on which Ahmadinejad is able to fail miserably.
Denying Ahmadinejad this platform can only be seen as a sign of weakness or fear…both of which are unfounded.
Schizer. People who are invited to speak are useful not only for the information they provide in what they say but also for what they exemplify, especially in response to questions from the floor.
Ahmadinejad's talk and answers to questrions were very enlightening for students preparing to live outside the walls of the university. Such persons have power and get power and those two facts must be restated to rub the students' noses in reality.
Speaking of which, I thought Bollinger's introduction was poorly played. He was too over-the-top critical of Ahmadinejad. If I recall correctly, at one point he called Ahmadinejad an idiot or a villain, which is just not something you say about any world leader. Bollinger's words were too crude for a Columbia Dean. There are artful ways to criticize.
All in all this affair was handled poorly by Columbia. Not only in extending the invitation but also in terms of the way they handled the presentation.
The Dean is not crazy..he cannot afford to alienate the alumni who give to the school.The reality is that Columbis is not much better than the average state college like the University of Nebraska. I think that Nebraska would never allow this guy to speak at their University. Get real.
The key thing is that at least different leaders at Columbia are uninhibted by power structures in voicing their opinions and encouraging debate. With the debacle that is the populist media in the US, with the US brand so terribly damaged outside the US, these types of debates given some heart that, at least somewhere in the US, democracy as we know it still works – as the US has been threatening to kill it by hegomony and hypocrisy for most of this new century
Bollinger. From the Godfather trilogy, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."
Until the appearance actually took place I would have said Schizer, but Bollinger pleasantly surprised me by actually following through on what he promised and calling Ahmidinejad out for the lying tyrant he is. The invite worked. More people know that Mahmoud is a lying fool today than did yesterday. Now if they can only give the Minutemen a forum without shouting them down.
"Now if they can only give the Minutemen a forum without shouting them down."
You're a minutemanner KDM?
It's not a matter of fearing "being defeated by this buffoon." Do you honestly think this is about being afraid of the validity of this disgusting leader's arguments? It's a matter of giving him an international stage to spew more hatred toward our country – there IS NO "DEBATE". He hates us. He blames us for the world's problems. And he'd kill every one of us right this instant if he had it his way. It's like going back to an abusive boyfriend for the next black eye – why in the world would one do that?
Either you are for academic freedom or against it. Here you have one of the more controversial leaders in the world today seeking to make his point of view known outside of the world of his own creation. "What a load…" hits the point dead on and shows Schizer to be just as closed-minded and intellectually dishonest as the man he is protesting against. It is clear that if we wish to battle the ideologies that lead to the kinds of statements and beliefs that Mr. Ahmadinejad articulates, we must first understand their point of view. Only then, can we refute them.
It simply isn't enough for an educated person to claim his opponent does not seek the truth. In this vein, I too was very disappointed by Mr. Bollinger's speech. He should clearly have let the man speak without disparaging him. Let Mr. Ahmadinejad own words and actions speak for themselves. I'm sure had Mr. Bollinger given him enough rope, he would easily have hung himself.
How can we trust the Minutemen on border security when they can't even secure the perimeter around their podium?
Bollinger. We strive to live in a free society and should always make a point to listen to points of view that we may disagree with.
The more these idiots complain about Ahmadinejad, and the more noise the neoconservative right makes about it, the more they validate the guy in the world political sphere. If Ahmadinejad is as full of nonsensical BS as many people feel, then they should actually endorse giving this guy as much exposure as possible. If he's such a clown, let him create a circus on national TV. The more people try to silence him, the more it seems like he actually has something valid or of value to say.
Does anyone have the full intro & speech?
All I found is this one part
Why are people afraid to hear him speak? I laud the idea that he can be challenged openly on stage for a change. This should benefit us.
Bollinger's right. Schizer's wrong.
P.S., interesting that in the 6:15 video Columbia students praise Ahmadinejad when he criticizes Bollinger's introduction. Says a lot about Columbia.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Let the guy demonstrate his inability to form coherent responses to pointed questions. The guy is the president of Iran; he doesn't need a "platform," and "prestige" is meaningless. The more this guy talks, the more exposed he is.
Whether a person is "bad" or has "bad ideas" is not always subjective. There is evil. Obviously Hitler , Stalin and Kim Jong Il come immediately to mind. Ahmadinejad and Iran are right there with those names and they are not just "controversial". He does not deserve the right that a pluralistic free society gives for the expression of his ideas at one of the nation's most respectable institutions of higher learning when his very ideas would be to destroy that platform and everything the institution otherwise stands for. It was not RIGHT that he was given the opportunity to persuade at all since his ideas about Israel, the US and freedom in general are evil and destructive.
Not everything is subjective and of equal value to be heard and discussed. Academic freedom is not license to treat ALL ideas of equal value.
Will someone please explain to me what is being "exposed" by giving this guy a platform? DO you think that Western society gives him any merit, thus requiring his idiocy to be "exposed"? Further, do you honestly believe that "exposing" him will change ANY of his followers' minds? If the West already knows he's full of it, and inviting him to speak for the purposes of "exposing" him will not change the minds of those we (mainstream Western society) disagree with, please explain to me what the point of any "debate" with him is.
It's okay for him to speak, if he is placed in context. Let Columbia have a "genocide and hatred seminar" – invite Iran's President – in a panel with David Duke, other KKK reps, advocates of female genital mutilation in Africa, advocates of resegregation and Jim Crow laws in the South, advocates of apartheid, advocates of gay-linching, advocates of deporting all American muslims, etc. Would all those folks be welcome to Columbia? If so, let 'em all speak.
The issue is not free speech for offensive opinions — the issue is whether there is free speech for all offensive opinions, or only for anti-Jewish opinions.
Schizer–an easy call. The First Amendment does not require anyone to invite anyone else to speak in their home. Nor does "academic freedom". Universities make value judgments every day with respect to whom is invited to speak on campus. At some level, the invitation is an endorsement of the merit of the remarks, or of the speaker; otherwise the invitation would not have been extended.
When the invitation is made purely on the ground of the speaker's notoriety, or perhaps for the odiousness of his views, the result is what occured here: the inviting party feels compelled to insult the guest from the podium, in order to ensure the audience does not misconstrue the invitation. The whole process was a mistake.
6:28, The worst genocide today is being committed by neocons and Israel against Arabs. 650,000 Iraq civilians dead and millions of Palestinians kept in permanent enslavement.
Your post perfectly articulates why certain people don't want to hear Ahmadinejad speak. They don't want the truth to get out.
As anyone who watched the speech knows, Columbia students were on Ahmadinejad's side. Not only when he responded to Bollinger's vicious and classless introduction, but when he criticized the apartheid state of Israel.
I would like to see any of you racist anti-Arab militarists live one day in the shoes of an enslaved Palestinian, a brutalized Iraqi, or a constantly threatened Iranian.
Maybe if the neoconservative right hadn't made such a mockery out of American foreign policy and American views of foreign policy, guys like Ahmadinejad wouldn't be of any relevance. Maybe then people would blow off the guy's outrageous statements without giving him any credibility. Instead, there are many people in this country – and many more people in the world – who believe this guy's world view is valid and even the correct one. And for that, you neoconservatives (and those who espouse the neoconservative view) have only yourselves to blame. The more you try to shout down guys like Ahdmadinejad, the more credibility you give him in the eyes of the rest of the world – including those Americans who are sick and tired of the George W. Bush worldview.
anon@6:04–You don't have to be a Minutemanner to think that law abiding US Citizens have a right to speak where they are invited without being shouted off the stage by a bunch of thugs at an institution of higher learning.
Bollinger for President
America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free".
Bollinger, at least until his silly tirade of an introduction. What is exceedingly regrettable is the contribution of the Bush administration and its media shills to the prominence given this nut job. Just as Cheney's visit to the Persian Gulf and giving his warning speech to Iran on the aircraft carrier handed Ahmadinejad a political rallying cry, the vehemence of the reaction to his visit to NYC may well strengthen the little man in the internal politics in Iran.
Fortunately, Ahmadinejad is not in command in Iran , the Grand Ayatollah and his Mullahs having the real say (subject, of course, to the Republican Guard there pretty much doing its own thing).
And, as to How dare you 6:35, query why the Arab and Muslim oil wealth of the Middle East has not in sixty years eased the suffering of, and freed, the "enslaved Palestinian".
Bollinger. Nonetheless, I must say this. I suspect that many who are troubled by Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia would not be as troubled if we had more confidence that the universities in the U.S., especially elite ones, were not dominated by the the Blame American First crowd, both in terms of faculty and student orientation. Looking at the universities, we see large groups of faculty and students that are very quick to view U.S. foreign policy in a manner that is amazingly consistent with the way in which this nation's enemies view our foreign policy. These groups are very quick to "explain" or "understand" the "root causes" of 9/11, the bombing of airliners and trains, etc., while at the same time attributing the worst motives to this country's foreign policy. We sense that universities like Columbia are places where free speech rights are respected, as long as it is the "right" kind of speech, and that a Blame America Firster will always be welcomed, under one rubric or another.
The last couple of posts are a riot. Defending a terror state and its dictator tells you all you need to know about Columbia University and the state of higher education in America. Its all about fair play and "free speech" when a liberal cause is in question. Why not extend the same courtesy for someone promoting a conservative cause such as border security and concern over illegal immigration? I suppose "free speech" is only free if it supports your own left-wing "progressive" view of the world.
Yes – Blame America First – you are absolutely correct; that is certainly part of my outrage. However, I would be just as outraged as I am now if my own alma mater, which is not so liberally slanted, invited him to speak.
This deserves reposting:
Bollinger: he has given Ahmadinejad the chance to prove how weak his ideas really are… If one is confident of his ideas, how can you fear whatever Ahmadinejad might say?
In this competitive world of ideas, we should be glad that there is a platform on which Ahmadinejad is able to fail miserably.
Denying Ahmadinejad this platform can only be seen as a sign of weakness or fear…both of which are unfounded.
Comment by George – September 24, 2007 at 5:43 pm
ND LAW #2 said:
"Whether a person is "bad" or has "bad ideas" is not always subjective. There is evil. Obviously Hitler , Stalin and Kim Jong Il come immediately to mind.
Ahmadinejad and Iran are right there with those names.."
I don't really see how you can compare Ahm. with the Hitler and Stalin…..has he invaded another country and killed millions of people? Actually Bush has more in common with Hitler and Stalin than Ahm.
I was disappointed that Bollinger attempted to placate Schizer. .It is frightening to me that someone like Schizer is the Dean of a respected Law School. I don't think Schizer understands the principles behind the Bill of Rights; and has let his personal passion overrule the possibility of openmindedness.
This event was a splendid opportunity for the President of Iran to soften his position and move towards understanding and possible peace. Diplomacy is incremental. Schizer appears to want permanent emnity between the people of Iran and the United States.
I did not know Ahmadinejad questions the Holocaust, nor that he executed homosexuals, so , looking back, it was a good thing he came to speak at my alma mater so I would have even more reason to despite him.
Americans have a right to have the views that monster does, so how can it hurt to hear them on a stage?
ROnNV, this joker did not speak at the U of Neb because that institution is not worth speaking at
To those who insist that allowing Ahmadenijad to speak is merely "blaming America first," I offer this: maybe people will stop blaming America when America gives them REASONS to stop blaming America. And one thing is for certain: you are not giving people a reason by constantly silencing world leaders who speak out against the views of George Bush and his ilk. Ahmadenijad may be completely and utterly full of crap, but keep in mind that his opposition right now is the likes of George Bush and Dick Cheney. That in itself makes the guy look good – especially if you continue to silence him, because that way his more outrageous opinions aren't going to get air time. All people are going to see is the worst President in modern American history (and those who support him) attempting to silence the opposition.
Schizer. I'd support the invitation had Columbia provided a forum for intelligent debate; instead it gave Ahmadinejad a pulpit. Giving someone a bullhorn and a crowd to talk at accomplishes little; determining whether a leader's views can withstand intelligent, if respectful, scrutiny is an invaluable exercise almost anywhere.
Schizer. Ahmadinejad is nothing but a controversial and crazy (to say the least) president of a controversial and crazy (to say the least)country. He should not have been invited, because he had and has nothing of value to say. Inviting him to speak at CU was at best an act of vanity on his host's part, and did little to enhance anyone's understanding of Iran or raise the quality of intellectual discourse on campus. While free speech makes a laudable value, doing away with sanity, intelligence and integrity at a place like Columbia should not be the price for it.
sss33 – I have no problem with other world leaders debating and discussing American foreign policy. However, I have quite a hard time with American institutions that roll out the red carpet for an evil dictator who doesn't just want to debate our leaders on their policy choices, but wants to KILL ALL OF US. Why you don't understand that is beyond me. He is not merely the "opposition" (which you so politely call him) – he is the ENEMY.
If it is supposed to be about an exchange of ideas, then it should have been a debate with long-answer times. Ahmadinejad vs. the Dean of Columbia Law.
I believe his invitation to speak was useful from several perspectives.
First, He was immediately questioned about his views and policies regarding Israel and the middle east ,effectively putting him on the spot to the point of stammering and agitation.Showing the true man.
Second,His appearance showed the attendees what he really is.
Third, The appearance showed
Mr. Ahmadinejad that his view
points are not readily absorbed by an intelligent and educated audience. I believe his visit was most informative and useful especially to those who thought such a person couldn't possibly exist.
It is about the hypocrisy of the Columbia administrations. I am yet to hear ANY justification from all the supposed first amendment lovers for why the ROTC should not be allowed in Columbia.
ANSWER THAT FIRST. And once you realize you cannot, do not post meaningless stuff. I probably love the first amendment more than you do, but hate hypocrites who selectively apply it the most.
Who's afraid @ 7:07 says this: "I have quite a hard time with American institutions that roll out the red carpet for an evil dictator who doesn't just want to debate our leaders on their policy choices, but wants to KILL ALL OF US." My response: And I have quite a hard time with American institutions that are so afraid of a clown like Ahmadinejad that they would openly advocate barring a private institution from allowing him to speak. I also have a hard time with a movement filled with people who constantly whine when so-called "liberal" colleges silence "conservative" viewpoints, yet turn around and openly advocate silencing Ahmadinejad because they do not agree with him. If Ahmadinejad is really the "evil dictator" that you and other select Americans claim he is, then you should allow this "evil dictator" to reveal himself to the entire world on as wide-ranging a medium as possible. Silencing him just so we can hear your one-sided allegations is not going to prove him to be any more of an "evil dictator" than George W. Bush is. And by the way, Ahmadinejad has challenged Bush to a debate plenty of times, but Bush keeps turning him down. That too baffles me, especially given the fact that many of you are so certain that this guy is just an evil dictator combined with some sort of circus clown. If that is the case, why doesn't Bush – or any other neocon for that matter – debate this guy and shred him apart in front of the entire world? Could it be, could it possibly be, that the neoconservative American movement is wrong yet again? I'd say so.
It's not about the 1st Am: you're right, and neither is the ROTC issue. As a 1st Amendment lover, you know that the 1st Amendment forbids *governmental* restrictions on speech. It says nothing about whether private universities can or must invite foreign presidents to speak.
As to Columbia's not allowing ROTC on campus, Columbia has not, as far I know, refused to let anyone *speak* in favor of the ROTC. (This would still a free speech issue, not a 1st Amendment issue, because Columbia is not a government actor.) I'm not arguing for Columbia's position here, but let's acknowledge the clear rationale: a private university shouldn't have to allow any employers to run on-campus recruiting programs if those employers have discriminatory hiring practices, e.g. won't hire gays.
Bollinger is in the right.
Bush said it best – and suprisingly eloquently too: "[The fact that he spoke here] speaks volumes about, really, the greatness of America."
Think about all the first amendment cases you read in Con Law, Schitzer. Take any one line of cases – marketplace of ideas, safety valve, listener autonomy, speaker autonomy, etc. – and think what happens if you silence a political view.
Schitzer is just taking a political stand because he wants appointments: executive appointments, judicial appointments, whatever will get him on the political radar. The intellectually honest thing to do is easy: Bollinger was right.
Other than Bollinger having a forum for grandstanding (and through flagrant rudeness making an idiot like Ahmadinejad look good – a real feat), nothing was achieved. Perhaps in the spririt of reciprocity, Bollinger could go to Tehran and give a speech?
If Bollinger had kept his mouth shut instead of engaging in blatant political grandstanding, this event might have come off as a loss for Ahmadinejad – especially with the questions he was receiving. But Bollinger practically gift wrapped this one as America's political gift to Ahmadinejad instead. Nice job Bollinger.
Tea Drinker: "He should not have been invited, because he had and has nothing of value to say."
Oh…nice of you to decide that for all the rest of us.
Schizer was right. Ahmadinejad is an enemy of freedom, and by giving him the podium, Columbia treated the Iranian president with a dignity he did not deserve. Nevertheless, having made the foolish mistake of inviting Ahmadinejad, Columbia should have allowed him to speak his mind. Bollinger's attack on Ahmadinejad before he even started made a mockery of the entire free inquiry/free exchange justification offered by Columbia in the first place. Bollinger's actions look like a cheap, malicious trick intended to save face after the richly-deserved criticisms heaped on Columbia.
and to think they won't let John Kerry speak at Catholic U in DC cause of his stand on abortion… they should invite this nutty dude instead. keep smiling!
Both Bollinger and Schitzer shall IMHO be considered intellectual light weights and are obviously not suited to lecture at a University. Their opinions are short sighted and their brains, or what is left of it, must have been washed-out by the propaganda from the Pentagon and Fox News. Now who's the villian and who's the true tyrant? Ahmadinejad, Bush or the USA? The UN's Iraq oil-for-food programm, invented and imposed by the U.S. Government, lead to the death of 1 million innocent Iraqi civilians. Many Iraqi children died even before they reached their 1st birthday due to America's policies. This was said in a sworn statement in the U.S. Senate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrdFFCnYtbk The current bloody war against Iraq, a U.S. invention, has already lead to an estimated 600,000 casualties among the Iraqi civilian population. Thus in 'just' two decades, the United States of America, is and shall be held responsible for the death of 1.7 million innocent Iraqi civilians. But I guess no American student should try to proclaim the hidden truth about America's Middle-East policies, as there's a big chance he or she will be arrested, handcuffed, Tasered and put in Jail for a while. Freedom of speech…?
The source for The Spectator's damning indictment of the US is Scottish MP George Galloway, well known as a onetime supporter of the Soviet Union, as an apologist for Fidel Castro, for having been accused by a US Senate committee of receiving ill-gotten gains from the UN's oil-for-food program in Iraq, and for having claimed that, "Hezbollah has never been a terrorist organisation!"
Ahma must be doing something right, since all the media whores are all over him. Starting with Diane Sawyer of ABC.
By the way, wasn't that North Korean fella the worst leader just short time ago on ABC TV? What happened to him?
Why am I force fed this "news"?
Oh come off it! That Iranian guy is a loon – denying him the chance to speak is the greatest favour anyone could ever do to him.
Bollinger. And I want to visit next so he can straighten me out, too. I will bring my friends, the rulers of every other country in the Middle East, and most of Central Asia. Do you have room for all 50 of us? That includes many of my African friends, and our fraternal brother, the ruler of N. Korea. Tell us what you really think. We will never face our faults and ignorance as individuals and as peoples unless we can be beyond the insufferable political correctness of most of your other American centers of learning. That is why I vote for your Mr. Bollinger. Thank you.
Whoever believes Ahmadinejad will be a voter for Hillary for they will believe her also.
Bollinger. Ignoring Ahmadinejad doesn't mean his ideology or the repressive regime he presides vanishes. That is just an ostrich attitude.
Instead, exposing his ideas in front of people gives others opportunity to discern and judge. We shall have confidence to believe that most people with reasoning and sensibility would find how ridiculous he and his ideology may be.
Bollinger should be canned for publicly castigating any invited speaker.
I'm having trouble understanding the objection to Bollinger's critique of Ahmadinejad – why is it that Ahmadinejad can express his views and Bollinger should be stifled?
The hatred of our country on this thread is very discouraging.
5:48pm notes: "If I recall correctly, at one point he called Ahmadinejad an idiot or a villain, which is just not something you say about any world leader."
I tend to agree with that, but alas no one applies that standard to our own president.
Historians will, I think, marvel at the volume of childishly ugly stuff that has been said about Bush since 2000.
Schizer. If the guy really is as bad as Bollinger says, he shouldn't have been invited. But, if he is invited, Bollinger shouldn't have been so rude. If you invite someone, decorum demands that you treat that person as a guest, regardless of how atrocious they are. Leave the name calling to the students and protestors. All that said, Ahmadinejad really botched his PR stunt on the homosexuality thing. You can say all you want about Zionism, how the U.S. is a warmongerer, how you aren't really supplying the Taliban with weapons, etc. etc. But say something ridiculous about gays on an American campus???
7:41 is right on the money. I also vote for Bollinger. Especially after he gave Mahmoud Amanasswhothinksimbad a thumping. Great introductory remarks.
You invite Mahmoud in the name of intellectual freedom but won't allow Sean Hannity on campus or an ROTC recruiting office. Somebody up there needs a good face slap.
Easy call – Schizer.
For those of you praising Bollinger for his tough/fighting words in introducing Ahmadinejad: As Bollinger noted during his introduction, Ahmadinejad was there not to allow him to preen at the dais of a prestigious university but to educate those in attendance("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"). But what, pray tell, can be learned from someone that the University thinks so little of, as evidenced by his introduction? What, in fact, was learned – it was, after all, the same warmed-over nuttiness that we have seen from Ahmadinejad time and again – and could we have possibly thought that it would be any different? I think not. No, Bollinger made a major error in judgment and, when called out, had to be tough on the Iranian President to save face.
Also, what's with the Aaron Sorkin quotes, Lion? Can we at least bring a little original thought to this board? It's bad enough we have to be force fed prattle from a Middle Eastern despot, but do we have to also endure the regurgitated rants of Hollywood as well?
Schizer. Of course Schizer will never be president. Actually, Ahmadinejad was even dumber than I thought. Maybe some students did learn something from his talk. For instance, that there are no gays in Iran. Right up there with Holocaust denial.
Ahmadinejad is a figurehead – he has nothing like the power of a "President"as we think of the position. His only power is based upon his ability to irritate Westerners – and our 30something hotshot dean seems to have swallowed the hook
The man is referred to as a "despot" and doubtless he would be if he could – but he is essentially powerless. Do some serious reading on the current political structure of Iran, good people,before making still more bad decisions (GWB seems to have a lock on making the most bad ones with regard to Iraq,for the same reason – he doesn't have a scorecard, doesn't know the players. Neither do almost all of the bloggers above)
Irritating Westerners isn't power, except in the minds of some Westerners.
Can I ask a simple question? What are we afraid of?
The United States as a matter of policy, and certainly the current administration, has elected not to talk to Iran officially for all sorts of reasons. We don't like them from holding our embassy hostage, and rightly so. We don't like them for taking our fellow citizens hostage, and rightly so. We were on the other side of the Iran-Iraq war, and we think he harbors terrorists and supports terrorists in Hezbollah and elsewhere, and we think he's trying to maneuver Iran in a position to blow up the world, so we officially don't like him. So the way we take out our dislike is that we refuse to engage him. That works just fine if you're a 5-year-old, or in the middle of a high school hissy fit but really, what are we afraid of?
We certainly have diplomats and politicians skillful enough to deal with Ahmadinejad. Who knows what he's like in private. You all talk as if you know all about him when all he does is spew like every other blowhard politician trying to keep his job. You don't know that in private he plays those same word games that he plays when he's being interviewed on 60 Minutes, or when he's address a student body, or the United Nations, so please, stop talking about how he wants to destroy Israel, doesn't believe the Holocaust existed, etc, etc. How do you know, because he says so? This administration has said plenty of things that have fallen by the wayside as so much claptrap; the last president said he didn't have sex with an intern. We don't believe our own politicians but we believe this guy? Please. None of you has a clue what this guy would be like behind closed doors. It's time we found out.
Actually, I'll tell you what the real question is: What have we got to lose? What has the United States of America got to lose by engaging Iran?
I'm not saying you have him at the White House for a state dinner with the trumpets blaring, medals hanging and epaulettes dangling –I'm not talking about that at all. Get some of our senior diplomats –in fact, it would be a good idea for the president to ask his father and President Clinton, who apparently get along quite well, and represent the two major political parties in this country and who have great gravitas in the region and around the world to meet with Ahmadinejad. That relieves the president of the necessity to do so but it sends representatives at the highest level to engage him, to hear what he has to say face to face, to speak with him, talk with him and to begin a dialogue that could be an alternative to expanding our military engagement in this part of the world.
What do we get instead? Ahmadinejad will address the General Assembly, as will President Bush. The president has a couple of meetings schedule –of course, none with Mr. Ahmadinejad– so these two will make a big deal out of ignoring each other today, when what really should've happen is, the president oughtta say to his advisors, "I want you to find out where Ahmadinejad is gonna be, and I want us to be there. I want it to be a coincidental meeting. I wanna say hello to this guy. I wanna look him in the eye and say hello to him and engage him."
Would that be a mistake? And if so, why would you think that'd be a mistake? We act as if we have something to lose here. What have got to lose by talking to this guy?
Now you say, well, look, some of the things he said are outrageous and if we talk to him, it'll legitimize him –no, stop that. We can't legitimize him or delegitimize him. He's the president of Iran. The people of Iran have decided that along with the real leaders, the Mullahs. He's their president, so whether we talk to him or we don't talk to him, he remains the president of Iran and he comes to the General Assembly and speaks to the General Assembly. Come on, this guy is a piker compared to some of the politicians and leaders we've had to deal with.
I don't believe we can't deal with him. I don't understand why we refuse to engage him. Maybe you can explain.
Let me remind you that all during the Cold War with the Soviet Union when we were at each other's throats we maintained lines of communication. Not only did we meet at internationally and exchange ideas, talk to each other, and various presidents would have summit meetings with the various leaders of the Soviet Union –we even had the famous red telephone so that if anything happened they could talk to each other to make sure before guns started blazing. If we can talk to a country that had nuclear weapons pointed at us, we can't talk to this foolish guy from Iran?
Ya know, one of the things we got out of those engagements with the Soviet Union during the cold war was the phrase "real politik" –that is, we have to realize things as they are, not as we wish them to be. This man is the president of Iran. Yes, there are other authorities –the Mullahs, who have the real power– but Iran is a nation of near 70 million people. The average age is 25, a huge country, a huge market, they have a significant military as it is and they're moving toward having nuclear capability –they say for power, we worry that it's for military purposes– and they're in a very important part of the world. We can't afford to ignore a country like that.
Again, it goes back to the old cliché: Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. But no we don't do that. We have to do it our way. And we do so at our own peril.
The guy can say whatever he wants. It's up to the audience to believe it or not. Tell me why is Salman Rushdie always welcome to give speeches in US universities? Isn't he the same guy who wrote a book saying that the Koran is a bunch of satanic verses? Isn't that an insult to Muslims both in American and outside? Then why don't people protest that? Has a muslim scholar written a book attacking the bible or torah?
Why is inviting israeli politicians to speak not an issue? Don't they also kill civilians in the middle east? How about China, India or Pakistan? Don't they suppress their people and kill them in Kashmir etc?
You have to stop being hypocritical and look at everything going on around you, and not allow the media to influence you as much as it has.
I believe Ahmadinejad is a suppressor, violator of human rights, etc, but I think listening to his views won't hurt.
Shizer's sine qua non is support of Israel. But viewed from the Iranian perspective can't Israel be viewed as a racist nation? And as an unwavering supporter of Israel can't we be viewed as petty dictators?
Ahmadinejad is laughing at this Nation. Take a moment to think about what just happened, one of our greatest enemies just spoke, was invited to speak, in a public forum on our soil. It is similar to inviting Hitler or later Stalin to speak at one of our universities during WWII or soon after.
For those in favor of this speach, what gives you cause to think that he does not with us harm and we need to embrace him? I would further summize, that Ahmadinejad knows and understands what this Nation is based on better than you all do.
shame on bollinger for his statements. He brought the iranian president here under the auspices of free speech, and when bollinger gets taken to task for bringing him in, he tries to save face by humiliating the iranian president. If i was ahmadinejad, i'd be pissed too…what bollinger did was shameful and in a lot of ways hypocritical for the actions he took the iranian president for, yet he succummed to public pressure himself in making those introductory comments
Bollinger's introduction was offensive, lacked substance and made Ahmadinejad more sympathetic. I never thought I would see the Dean of Columbia University resort to petty insults.
If you INVITE someone, as did Columbia, you treat them with coutesy and respect. I too felt shamed by Bollinger's petty comments. Deeply embarassing.
Bollinger's behavior was offensive and childish. Here is the president of Iran willingly and calmly facing one of the most hostile audiences imaginable, while the hosts behave as if they represent normalcy or even superiority, with their precious leader afraid even to attend a UN meeting on climate change. His comments on gays were stupid, but believe it or not, this is not the most important issue in the world. His country has not destroyed other countries for no reason at all and his actions have not resulted in the death of close to a million people (most recently, but not uncharacteristically), again, for no reason at all. And the US lecturing other countries on capital punishment? Please. Let's get some perspective on this. We are in no position to lecture anyone. That time is over if it ever indeed existed.
Columbia does let ROTC recruit on Campus, it just doesn't have its own program
Schizer. Bollinger can tell himself all he likes that he did the write thing by inviting the Iranian dictator and then going after him in his introductory comments. But, he's wrong. Perception is important and you can bet that the state controlled media in Iran will not mention Bollinger's comments. What WILL be featured is the President addressing the crowd. And, that speaks volumes….
"he did the write thing"
Bollinger. Otherwise, the prerequisite of intellectual honesty would prevent President Bush from speaking.
The foregoing comments take both law profs to task,even though they simply openly expressed their opinions. Bollinger only recounted in his intro what is readily available common knowledge. Schizer made some very good points, as these posts all too vividly bear out. Being a Columbia grad I'm saddened by the way the university has drifted toward the radical fringe politically, but it is events like this that will pull it back toward the more rational center. As for the poor downtrodden Arab masses, if their governments were democratic they'd be much better off. They'd even be able to get up and spout their views in public, no matter how uninformed.
how about neither. and so much for the objectives of Columbia's World Leaders Forum — in Bollinger's words "The question we in the academy ask is, how can we engage our significant intellectual resources and provide a safe haven for conversation that makes a meaningful contribution to the search for solutions and provides an opportunity to broaden global understanding?" probably much closer to that objective by referring to an invited guest as a cruel and petty dictator and astonishingly uneducated. nice grandstanding. it must be a heavy burden to appoint yourself the defender of all things righteous. will you be appearing on Larry King Jive soon? i suppose Ahmadinejad could have responded by asking how many and why so many innocent persons of persian and arab descent were held without charge in american jails in the last five years? renditions, anyone? or why so many african-americans were executed in America last year? and citing the "good" american general for "facts" relating to terrorism and the war. please. i could go on, but am drowning in the hypocrisy. by the way, just how many Columbia University graduates have volunteered to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan? are you kidding?
I heard the intro and the speech as well as the commentary on the news programs and read the article in the WSJ. Painting Ahmadinejad as a buffoon (as the media has) does each and every one of us a dis-service. He is not a buffoon. Personally, I am grateful to hear an opinion right out of the horse's mouth, adversary or not. How much does that happen in our media? Further, not one article or news program took on his question 'Why should the Palestians shoulder the pain for sixty years, of Europe's greatest shame' (implying the holocaust). It is a very fair question. That it received no attention in our press, at the very least, should cause a discomfort in us all.
He is killing American soldiers. Would Columbia and Bollinger have invited Hitler or the Kiser to speak? If so it cannot call itself an "institution of higher learning".
Thou Shall Not Say Anything Negative About Israel. Repeat. Thou Shall Not Say Anything Negative About Israel.
Welcome to America!
Schizer…..by a landslide.
Hitler HAS been invited to speak. Mein Kanmf is in the Columbia Library. Schizer is for free speech as long as he approves of who is speaking. Thank you Pres. Bollinger for restoring free speech to America!
As a long-time alum of both the College and the law School, I am delighted and proud that the invitation was extended and that the event went smoothly.
We need not fear seeing the face, or hearing the voice, of one with whom we disagree or even despise.
I struggled with this. I finally came up with: I agree with Schizer. W's comment about the greatness of America is true, to some extent; but Ahmadinejad is not only an anti-Semite on par with Hitler. If only he simply hated Jews, fine. But he goes further. This guy actually wants them wiped off the map. He is stirring a pro-Arab anti-Semite pot that kills. I believe he and his words are more virulent and inciteful than any mere speech. That, at the end of the day, is the real problem. Ahmadinejad, the leader of Iran, literally advocates wiping Israel off the map, and I believe his words are resulting in fervor that kills Israelis and kills Americans. This whole Arab-Zionist middle east struggle is like a tinderbox of dynamite. Doesn't take much of a spark to kill lots of people. Our free speech historians above will note the case where our U.S. Supreme Court said you can't shout fire in a crowded theater. That's what I believe Ahmadinejad is doing, so I finally decided to side with Schizer.
Kudos to those above who fantasized about 'what if' we conditioned his speaking ability here on ours there. Imagine: one of us Americans gets to stand up and speak freely in a pulpit before hundreds of thousands or millions of Iranians — to speak candidly and tell them the truth about Ahmadinejad, about wiping Israel or any other entire country or ethnic group "off the map," about whether the Holocaust happened, about human rights, liberty, separation of church and state, in short, about all the things that make Ahmadinejad a virulent cancer that himself should die. Too bad that is just a fantasy. But thanks to those who suggested it — it was a good one and I can only hope your creativity will filter through to those in power sooner rather than later.
Schizer. I recommend that all the free speech advocates check out the coverage of the event in the middle east. Bollinger and his comments will not appear instead Mr. A will have scored a propaganda coup just by being invited to a prestigious school in an obvious repudiation of American foreign policy and endorsement of his homophobic and anti semitic views. All else is fluff.
Seems to be a lot of ignorance by many posts here. It does leave one wondering whether those who were enamored by having Ahmadinejad speak would feel the same way had he said, "I want all gays killed" or "I want all dogs tortured".
Ironically, Iran's record on supressing student revolts is brutal, yet the students/lemmings in this audience who cheered for this dictator or simply didn't speak up against it didn't make the connection. Perhaps Columbia has dropped its standards for intellectual curiosity of its students.
What better way to create sympathy for the Iranin president in his own country be invitng him to speak, then castigating him in public as an introduction. The president of Columbia is naive,or politically shrewd by his actions to give the president a boost in the muslim world. Was that his true intentions?
listen – if Pat Buchanan can run for President (a well known racist) this guy should have his own TV show as well.
Besides, its about time the people of US were exposed to news from sources other than CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox etc.
some international perspective would go a long way for the US people's assimilation into the world
Impressive that 11:53 was able to foretell the ignorance that would occur at 12:49 ("US people's assimilation into the world"). Wow. What a meathead.
This one's easy…Schizer.
I don't see what's wrong with Bollinger's invitation. Just because we believe Ahmadinejad lied so he is not up to our intellectual standard? Just because he supported our enemies so we want to silence him? I don't see the point. Our government lied to us about the Mass Destruction Weapons in Iraq too.
The invitation may not be wrong. The freedom of speech is not wrong either. As the saying goes, I may object everything he said, but I support his right to speak. Only after we listened, then we can make our own judgment. I hate the media making judgment for us and misled people because of their bias. We don't listen to Europe, we don't listen to Asia, and at the end we just become a big guy with a nuclear bom threatening everybody who disagree with us. Is that what we want?
I strongly support Columnbia University's invitation. And like a juror I want to hear both sides' story, no matter it's a lie or it's a self claimed truth. Sorry Schizer, you are wrong.
I'm more troubled by Schizer's position that I am by Bollingr's, especially after the event unfolded as it did. If anyone needs to be concerned about alumni contributions, it may be Schizer!
I'm just waiting for Bollinger to invite Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh to campus for a seminar. I won't hold my breath.
I was so excited when I heard that Columbia had asked everybody's favorite crazy leader to speak at Columbia University. I told myself that this was proof that America is great because we are able to debate the issues even with crazy, delusional, power hungry leaders from all over the world. What the world needs is more debate and Columbia was going to deliver.
Then I saw the introduction from the President from Columbia. What a wuss? He was so rude. Since when did being rude means that you're though. That was entrapment. Ahmadinejad did not asked to be there, he was invited. You don't invite a crazy person to your party and then introduce him as the crazy person. Let everybody else be presently surprise.
People who take the statements Ahmadinejad say seriously, I find funny. If his statement about Iran not having any homosexuals was not proof that he's f**cking with us, I don't know what is.
I think that Ahmadinejad, just for fun, goes home and thinks of stupid things he can say to get America and Israel's panties in a bunch. And he succeeds every time.
Ahmadinejad's Iran does not have homosexuals. It also has no hunger, no disease, and no nuclear ambitions. He is crazy and that is what he believes. If his thinking was rational he would not be the crazy leader from Iran.
Check out my blog at http://www.youtubethis.blogspot.com
1:26, Ahmadinejad is not just crazy. Don't downplay him. if he were a crazy guy with a lamp on his head at a party, fine. If that were all, I'd say let him entertain us with his idiocy. But this guy is a crazy Jew/Zionist-hating guy with nuke abilities and lots of weapons, ready to use 'em. Heck, W's claiming Ahmadinejad's sending others weapons to kill our troops. That's not just crazy, that's potentially conspiracy to commit murder.
12:49 + 1:14 = meathead
"It would be deeply regrettable if some misread this invitation as lending prestige or legitimacy to his views."
The University should not lend its prestige to Zionists by inviting them to speak.
1:43 pm-Crazy people do know about self preservation. I worry about a lot of things, but Amadinejad wiping Israel from the face of the Earth is not one of them. I said he was crazy, not stupid. He can't keep saying crazy things about gays not existing in his country if he's dead after America's has wiped Iran from the surface of the Earth with just one nuke. He knows that, I know that. I wish everybody else knew that too.
"6:28, The worst genocide today is being committed by neocons and Israel against Arabs. 650,000 Iraq civilians dead"
Just for the record,
Iraq has a population of 27.5 million.
It has a death rate of 5.26 per 1,000.
So, if you do the rough math on this – that comes out to 144,650 per year X 4 years = 578,600.
Roughly 578,600 people have died in Iraq . . . as the result of anything . . . by **ANY** cause whatsoever. So when you're saying neocons have killed 650,000 Iraqi civilians (all civilians, of course . . . and all by neocons (apparently there's no infighting between Shiites or Sunnis in Iraq or terrorists, just a bunch of neocon killing everybody) – what you are saying is that the U.S. has killed more people than have died in Iraq of any cause at all, whether it be cancer + old age + death by terrorists + anything — To put it more succinctly, what you're saying is bull—-.
Bollinger. Invite politicans to speak and you get what you canme to hear. A lot of grandstanding- on both sides- this time. What politican is truthful? When did our president ever tell the truth? Maybe he should have been invited tooo.
Schizer: Bollinger would never invite Ahmadinejad's friend David Duke to spout his form of hatred at the University, so the guy's a hypocrite. It's not free speech he's defending but publicity he's seeking. In doing so he provided a platform for Ahmadinijad to gsin further legitimacy here and abroad. Bollinger's attempt to provide 'balance' with that rude intro was an embarrassment to himself and Columbia.
Schizer. Bollinger made a fool of himself, once again. I can't beleive all of the idiots posting comments here. I guess this means I am now one of them.
Please invite him again. Talk to your ennemies (Baker, ex secretary of State). You could do the same with Fidel Castro.
Bollinger. But to be fair, I haven't agreed with anything Schizer has said since he became dean.
Public relations exercise backfires on Bollinger- His "rudeness" while perhaps rallying a few critics is being equated Ahmadinejad 's record. Sort of like MoveOn took the focus off the facts with its "rude ad" Bollinger, though he wasa right to have world figures speak at Coumbia, comes off as both a toady and a bore.
I find it highly ironic that Columbia believes that ROTC is not welcome on campus because of the don't ask-don't tell policy, while inviting a guy who supports hanging homosexuality.
According to the official iranian news agency (story since removed) the iranian president receieved a standing ovation and the cheers of students.
Bollinger's introduction was all about "I took so much pubilicity crap for inviting Ahmadinejad so I am going to cover my ass by attacking the dude before he even spoke". If Bolliger wanted to defend the rationale behind inviting the Iranian President (e.g., freedom of speech, knowing your enemy, etc.), he should have let the man speak and let the audience poke holes in the Iranian position. Unfortunately, Bolliger didn't exhibit the level of courtesy, courage and thoughtfulness expected from a Columbia president.
Bollinger. As an alumn of Columbia Law, I'm disappointed in Schizer's reaction. He has every right to disagree, but to put out a statement which does nothing more than try to undermine Bollinger's position seems petty.
To Anonymous
Dude, you are making all the right points, but don't even try to reason with islamist supporters like "How Dare you". They are 2-bit fanatics, not interested in facts or objectivity. The palestinian people, who he defends, brainwash their own kids to become homocidal maniacs. Do you really think he is interested in your math? He is just like Ahmadinejad, a loonie, asking for medical treatment.
Liberalism is indeed based on moral relativism. It never ceases to amaze me, when I read the blogs posted by the obvious liberal readers here, how history repeats itself. The 20th Century was easily the deadliest of mankind. In the 21st, the latest evil will likely be WMD's in the hands of terrorists, put there by terrorist regimes (clearly Iran) and the indiscriminant use of such on civilian populations.
When George Bush spoke to Congress after 9/11 and proclaimed that the United States will no longer distinguish between terrorists and the regimes that sponsor them, I don't recall anyone disagreeing with him. Yet, when the policy is actually implemented and there is tough going, the screams can be heard from all the usual suspects. It is especially galling when those that seek power decry the very policies that they voted for (HRC and all her kind).
For those of you who missed yesterday's excellent WSJ piece by Bret Stephens, see the excerpts below to "Columbias Conceit":
On Saturday, John Coatsworth, acting dean of Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs, made the remark that "if Hitler were in the United States and . . . if he were willing to engage in a debate and a discussion to be challenged by Columbia students and faculty, we would certainly invite him."
That's an interesting thought, coming from a man who won't countenance an ROTC program on campus. But leave that aside. What's more important is the question of how Columbia defines the set of ideas it believes are worth "confronting," whether its confidence in "dialogue and reason" is well placed and, finally, whether confronting ideas is a sufficient condition for understanding the world.
Orwell's criticism of the liberal intelligentsia was that they refused to understand the conditioned way of life." Orwell, he wrote, really knew what it was like to live under a totalitarian regime — unlike, say, George Bernard Shaw, who had "insisted upon remaining sublimely unaware of the Russian actuality," or H.G. Wells, who had "pooh-poohed the threat of Hitler." By contrast, Orwell "had the simple courage to point out that the pacifists preached their doctrine under condition of the protection of the British navy, and that, against Germany and Russia, Gandhi's passive resistance would have been to no avail."
To put this in the context of Mr. Coatsworth's hypothetical, in hosting and perhaps debating Hitler, Columbia's faculty and students would not have been "confronting" him, much as they might have gulled themselves into believing they were. Hitler at Columbia would merely have been a man at a podium, offering his "ideas" on this or that, and not the master of a huge terror apparatus bearing down on you. To suggest that such an event amounts to a confrontation, or offers a perspective on reality, is a bit like suggesting that one "confronts" a wild animal by staring at it through its cage at a zoo.
In "Terror and Liberalism" (2003), Columbia alumnus Paul Berman observes the way in which prewar French socialists — keenly aware and totally opposed to Hitler's platform — nonetheless took the view that Germany had to be accommodated and that the real threat to peace came from their own "warmongers and arms manufacturers." This notion, Mr. Berman writes, rested in turn on a philosophical belief that "even the enemies of reason cannot be the enemies of reason. Even the unreasonable must be, in some fashion, reasonable."
So there is Adolf Hitler on our imagined stage, ranting about the soon-to-be-fulfilled destiny of the Aryan race. And his audience of outstanding Columbia men are mostly appalled, as they should be. But they are also engrossed, and curious, and if it occurs to some of them that the man should be arrested on the spot they don't say it. Nor do they ask, "How will we come to terms with his world?" Instead, they wonder how to make him see "reason," as reasonable people do.
In just a few years, some of these men will be rushing a beach at Normandy or caught in a firefight in the Ardennes. And the fact that their ideas were finer and better than Hitler's will have done nothing to keep them and millions of their countrymen from harm, and nothing to get them out of its way.
So, when the first nuke goes off in a major city, will we then all be saying, in post-9/11 fashion "We're all Neocons now"?
Schizer 100%. All these platitudes — "academic freedom," "free speech means listening to views we don't like," etc. Do you people even think about what you are saying? Denying a foreign leader a particular platform has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with free speech or academic freedom. NOTHING. If you can't comprehend this not-at-all-subtle distinction, you have no business even discussing this subject. No, I am not saying you do not have the right to discuss, but you just shouldn't be doing it because you're views are uninformed and worthless. Now, Ahmadinejad (i) does NOT have the right to say anything anywhere in this country, except perhaps in connection with UN proceedigs, so there goes your free speech arguments, and (ii) has nothing, NOTHING, to say that is worthy of the forum he was provided. This is not a foreign leader who we need to "learn" more about because his views are a mystery to us. Jesus, he's got multiple state-controlled news agencies at his beck and call, the "free" press of the world reports on his statements daily, and he gets to speak at the f–king UN regularly. There was no reason, NO justification, for CU to host this murderous dictator, who's got American blood on his hands.
This alum is done giving money to CU.
Forgot to mention, isn't Bollinger a tough guy? "Confronting" someone like Ahmadinejad, right there in person!?!?! At such great personal risk . . . oh yeah, no personal risk to himself. Unlike, oh, any person in Iran who dared to say the same things publicly.
A murderer, and self-proclaimed aspiring genocidalist, showed up at the UN and gave a speech. Then he showed up at Columbia. Some guy said harsh things to him. Then he gave another speech, saying basically nothing that he hadn't said before. Then that same murderer, and self-proclaimed aspiring genocidalist, went home. An unchanged man in an unchanged world. Good job, Lee Bollinger.
To those of you who support Bollinger:
The Iran News wrote that "By fearlessly and courageously walking into the 'Lion's Den' … [Ahmadinejad] is sure to become even more of a hero in the Arab-Muslim street than before." And the Islamic Republic News Agency said Ahmadinejad received a "standing ovation" from the audience at Columbia, and generally depicted his address as a success despite "objections" from U.S. media. The IRNA item about his speech also said he "answered the students' questions" on subjects including Israel, Palestine, Iran's nuclear program, and the status of women in Iran.
In 1982, many members of the faculty at the Columbia University Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation signed a petition protesting the exhibition of works on campus by artists working in Italy during the regime of Benito Mussolini. The artists (and architects) were thought to be in the service of a fascist state and, therefore, undeserving of academic analysis and public exposure, with the imprimatur of the university. As I recall, the exhibition did not any way extol the principles of fascism, but was, instead, an exposition of the work–paintings, drawings, models–with corresponding academic treatment about its social and historical context.
At the same time, at the GSAPP, two professors from the University of Havana–one a historian and the other a practioner and head of the architecture school–had been invited to teach a design studio in the spring semester.
As is the case with any communist totalitarian regime, education is rigidly controlled by the party and the government. These professors were emissaries of the government, for all intents and purposes. They taught in an environment where access to higher education is conditioned upon one's "revolutionary" credentials–and one's carefully scrutinized pre-university record (expediente), in which not only academic grades are recorded, but one's ideological zeal or diversionism, potential family subversiveness and other measures of revolutionary aptitude (and rectitude) are evaluated. Also, an environment in which neighborhood committees and street brigades watch over the civil peace of the one-party state, and respond with aggression–including bats and clubs–against those who do not conform. In short, fascism in action.
As the son of Cuban exiles, I decided I could not pass up the opportunity to "confront" these two gentlemen–using the word loosely. I signed up for their studio against the advice of friends and other professors who rightly pointed out that my focus should be on the substance of my final design studio, not on a "confrontation of ideas"–to use Bollinger's phrase–that might distract me from my work through an encounter that would inevitably be fraught with emotion.
As it turned out, were it not for my inconvenient comments throughout the semester, these two figures would hardly have encountered a "discouraging word," much less an oppositional stance from faculty and students. They were feted at receptions, given podiums in the school's lecture series, and generally treated like celebrities.
That is how Columbia engages and confronts ideas as it provides a platform for the powerful who have a voice at the expense of entire nations to project it as far and as wide as its prestige will allow.
It is shameful for the head of an institute like Columbia University to make such public comments. Its disgrace to the Institution. Whether Iranian president is good or bad, Mr Bollinger certainly exposed his bad side.
The Law Blog covers the legal arena's hot cases, emerging trends and big personalities. It's brought to you by lead writer Jacob Gershman with contributions from across The Wall Street Journal's staff. Jacob comes here after more than half a decade covering the bare-knuckle politics of New York State. His inside-the-room reporting left him steeped in legal and regulatory issues that continue to grab headlines.
Comment or tip? Write to firstname.lastname@example.com or email@example.com
Americans should be more concerned about their privacy being invaded by the spread of drones, Justice Sonia Sotomayor told an Oklahoma City audience on Thursday.
Months before unveiling its new smartwatch, Apple Inc. planted clues about the name of the device in a trademark application filed in Trinidad and Tobago.
A new car service app catering to women raises legal questions, according to discrimination law experts.
The husband of an obese New York City woman who died while vacationing in Europe after trying and failing to fly back to the U.S. for medical treatment has settled his $10 million lawsuit against three airlines who refused to let his wife on board.
A handful of law schools that reduced tuition for some or all of their students are reporting bumps in their entering classes.
Content engaging our readers now, with additional prominence accorded if the story is rapidly gaining attention. Our WSJ algorithm comprises 30% page views, 20% Facebook, 20% Twitter, 20% email shares and 10% comments.


text:
Taylor Swift made a big deal about her new hair cut, and people noticed! Hair cut parties are already being requested at salons just one day after Swift's big 'do to-do.
Jump on board by following quick tips to host a successful haircut party like T-Swift's, including tips from George the salon in Chicago:
- Make a big change. No one wants to go to a public showing of someone having his or her bangs trimmed. Swift chopped off her gold locks for a dramatic new look (that kind of looks like Karlie Kloss; somebody had to say it). "Sometimes big changes are difficult for us, and the support of your friends and family makes it easier to go through a drastic cut," says George Gonzalez, owner of George the salon.
- Give back. Gonzalez suggests connecting with a local charity and donating your hair.
- Location, location, location. Create a night out at the salon or travel off-site for special occasions.
- Make it fun! Obviously, not everyone is Taylor Swift, so most haircut parties probably won't occur after a concert in London. That doesn't mean parties can't feature music (Taylor Swift if you're feeling particularly inspired), refreshments and lots of pics on social media for encouragement and style suggestions.
- Get a good crowd. Everyone was very enthusiastic at Swift's party, and we get it: She's Taylor Swift. But hair cut parties for less-famous individuals can be equally exciting with a decent amount of people who are looking forward to a good reveal. Plus, says Gonzalez, friends can give the extra push a client needs to go through with a big change.
click image to zoomSeven-time Grammy winner Taylor Swift concluded the European leg of her RED tour with her 5th sold-out show at London's O2 Arena, playing to a capacity crowd of more than 15500 fans on February 11, 2014 in London, England. (Photo by Dave Hogan/TAS/Getty Images for TAS)


text:
all wordsany wordsphrase
n. the level of relationship between two persons related by blood, such as parent to child, one sibling to another, grandparent to grandchild or uncle to nephew, first cousins, etc., calculated as one degree for each step from a common ancestor. This may become important when determining the heirs of an estate when there is no will.
Presented By Big Voodoo


text:
Cambridge, MAUSA 02139
October 4, 2011
Hi I am always up for meeting new people and love the concept of this group. I head up a moms group at a local soup kitchen and we meet weekly for free lunch and playtime for children. We also distribute food pantry to families in need while there
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Cambridge-Moms-Community-Action-Organization/294108590615497 This link is to my facebook page and hopefully you all will like us Fun is working to lessen the burdens of those less fortunate while educating people who are more fortunate and do not understand
I found you on a meetup search for groups that know what social justice is. There simply is not enough of us.
Hi my name is nam. I am looking for a wing. If you are interested please text me at [masked]. I live in vegas and la and will be traveling to boston and san diego in a few weeks.
Hey no worries buddy. Always happy to help. I should be able to swing by next weekend too for prep. I can also stay a little after 4PM to help get the volunteers oriented. Glad things went well this past weekend! Be well.
Hi Bill,
That will be fine as co-organizer. That is the kind of guidance that I was interested in to make this as effective as possible. Sat August 3rd should be fun. I look forward to seeing you there!
Thanks Bill, I'm glad you are back! I'm very happy to be able to help you.
See you on Saturday.
I just sent an email to the group regarding a Networking Event at The Women's Center in Cambridge (46 Pleasant St) on July 15th. Since you get so many emails, I thought leaving a note about it here also couldn't hurt! I look forward to hearing back!
Thanks so much -- Stephanie
Thank you Bill.
Post a greeting for Bill
hi billy,
ill ask about may 11th`ill get back to U ;)
Hi Bill
the only address I got on the meetup is foxboro, I did not get any other address
hi Bill
I'm confused, one of the emails says tomorrow(that's friday,not saturday . I can't come on firiday,) another one says not foxboro and one says foxboro, I got the 2pm not 1pm but not sure where to go.
I did not know about any other meeting, I would have come.
could you please help me with this so I go to the right place?
thank you so much
Hey Bill, I'm excited too, See you next Saturday:)
Meetup members, Log in
By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy


text:
The Metrics of Video Sensor Effectiveness
Innovations move helter skelter in the field of security video software. The ascendance of video tools, particularly behavior analysis software, over the past few years has been astonishing. As always, the gap between expectations and reality in...
Where Is the Value?
How practical is a system with these kinds of error rates? Is an organization comfortable, for example, with the knowledge that every time it labels an actor as "in violation," it knows that it will be wrong 9 times out of 10, or even, as in the previous example, 2 times out of 10? If the number of real violations stays the same, any drop in accuracy raises the false alarm rate significantly, no matter how it is computed. To achieve a low false alarm rate, a system for detecting a common event, such as a car entering a garage, does not need to be as accurate as a system detecting a rare event, such as the violation of policy at a facility with a high rate of policy compliance. Similarly, for situations in which "bad" behaviors occur infrequently, the overall error rate of the system has to be significantly less than the frequency of the "bad" behavior, or the false alarm ratio will be high. In practical terms, users' first priority is to diminish actual violations of policy. As "bad" events become less frequent, the accuracy of the system needs to rise in order to have value.
In short, there is practical value to understanding how metrics interact. They provide another data point that can be used when fashioning a security system that matches your approach to risk to an array of currently available tools and technologies.
Jim Helman PhD was chief architect at SmartCatch, and Nicholas Imparato PhD is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and professor of management and marketing at the University of San Francisco. This article was prepared while both were consultants to NEC Laboratories and advisors to SmartCatch.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »


text:
I made the cake as per the recipe except I baked it in 9 inch pans. The cake was delicious and moist. The cherry filling was made from scratch using red tart cherries packed in water. The water from the cherries plus enough water added to bring up to one cup in volume was put in a saucepan along with 1/2 cup of light corn syrup, 1/4 cup sugar, 2 1/2 tablespoons cornstarch, and 4 drops red food coloring. This was cooked over medium heat with stirring until smooth and thickened. Then the cherries and 1 teaspoon of almond extract were added. All iced with the 7 minute frosting with maraschino cherries on top. One can no doubt use a good brand of cherry pie filling instead of making it from scratch, but I had rather make it from scratch. Great recipe!
Mount Vernon Cake
More From Oxmoor House
- 1 cup shortening
- 2 cups sugar
- 4 eggs, separated
- 3 cups all-purpose flour
- 1 tablespoon baking powder
- 1/4 teaspoon salt
- 1 cup milk
- 2 teaspoons vanilla extract
- Cherry Filling
- Seven-Minute Double Boiler Frosting
- Maraschino cherries with stems
- Cream shortening; gradually add sugar, beating well. Add egg yolks, and beat well.
- Combine flour, baking powder, and salt; add to creamed mixture alternately with milk, beginning and ending with flour mixture. Mix well after each addition. Stir in vanilla.
- Beat egg whites (at room temperature) until stiff peaks form; fold into batter.
- Pour the batter into 3 greased and floured 8-inch round cake pans. Bake at 350° for 25 to 30 minutes or until a wooden pick inserted in center comes out clean. Cool in pans 10 minutes; remove layers from pans, and let cool completely.
- Spread Cherry Filling between layers; spread top and sides of cake with Seven-Minute Double Boiler Frosting. Arrange cherries on top of cake.
My Notes
Only you will be able to view, print, and edit this note.Add Note
Mount Vernon Cake Recipe at a Glance
- COURSE: Cakes/Frostings
- CONVENIENCE: Entertaining, Kid-Friendly, Make-Ahead
- CUISINE: American
- MAIN INGREDIENT: Rice/Grains
- DIETARY CONSIDERATION: Meatless
- COOKING METHOD: Bake
- OCCASION: Birthdays/Anniversaries
- PUBLICATION: Oxmoor House
More Recipes Like This
Fresh Orange Wedding CakeCooking Light
Amaretto Cream Wedding CakeSouthern Living
Find out what we've got cooking...
Get our Free Weekly Specials Newsletter filled with our favorite recipes, seasonal menus, and special features.
We Respect Your Privacy. Privacy Policy


text:
Sign in
Sign Up
lowest rate guarantee
Estrada da Baia de N. Senhora da Esperanca
Sands Cotai Central Cotai Strip
Estrada do Istmo. s/n, Cotai
Praca de Ponte E Horta No 4-6
Great reasons to book with Agoda
Over 500,000 hotels worldwide – more added every day
Trusted by over 16,000,000 satisfied customers
Best Price Guarantee
8 million+ hotel reviews by Agoda customers
With availability in over 56,000 cities worldwide
agoda special offers
including last minute offers(even same day!)free nightsfree upgrades!
Customer Support
well train staff, attentive to...
0.12 Km.
Clean, Nearby to ferry terminal,...
good view, clean rooms and...
0.14 Km.
Room comfort, value for money and...
0.18 Km.
Near to ferry terminal. Hotel...
0.25 Km.
Clean. Casino. And near places...
0.28 Km.
Clean rooms, tasty yet affordable...
0.29 Km.
Comfort, good staff, easily...
0.35 Km.
staff performance, cleanliness of...
0.37 Km.
0.38 Km.
convenient traffic condition ,...
Location, room amenities and...
0.42 Km.
friendly staff, good enviroment...
0.43 Km.
Easy access to public transport,...
0.47 Km.
Room with a view of the harbour,...
Hotel cleanliness ok, condition a...
0.5 Km.
Good location, good food, nicely...
0.53 Km.
New ambiance great spa fast...
0.54 Km.
Net connectivity, Spacious...
0.58 Km.
4.5 / 5
over 80,000 reviews
of users recommend us
Go To Top
All material herein © 2005 – 2014 Agoda Company Pte. Ltd., All Rights Reserved.
AGODA ® is a registered trademark of AGIP LLC, used under license by Agoda Company Pte. Ltd. Agoda is part of


text:
Going back to school. Any writing advice?
- 0Nov 18, '12 by tokmomI have not written a paper in 20 some years. I used to be pretty good, but that was back then.
I heard that I will be writing in APA style and saw another post on PERRLA (sp). What else do I need to know? Any other online sites that I could read or study? I don't know what kind of papers I will be writing. The program is RN-BSN.
I do know one thing. Paper writing will have to be easier. I have a computer, not a typewriter. Google will be my friend. Not sitting in libraries reading book upon book.
Writing apps...
Not having to use white out.
Spell check, lol.Last edit by tokmom on Nov 20, '12
- 1Nov 18, '12 by mariebaileyI used the Purdue Online Writing Lab's APA Formatting/Style Guide all the time in school. You may find it helpful as well: Purdue OWL: APA Formatting and Style Guide


text:
Conducted patent and design searches on behalf of clients in a wide range of industries.
Thang Duc Nguyen
Vietnamese, English
LLB, Hanoi Law University
BA, Hanoi University of Foreign Studies
BSc, Hanoi Polytechnic University
Thang Duc Nguyen is a certified attorney-at-law and manages the patent group in Tilleke & Gibbins' Vietnam offices. Thang specializes in prosecuting patent and industrial design applications for foreign clients in all industry sectors, from chemical to automotive to software. His efficient, methodical, detail-oriented working style has helped him handle more than 900 patent applications over 14 years in the practice area. Thang also advises clients on patent issues and strategies in Vietnam, and handles other proceedings related to patent and design.
An avid lifelong learner, he has earned degrees in the disparate fields of law, organic chemistry and English. Thang is a member of the Hanoi Bar Association and a Vietnam-qualified patent agent.


text:
|Quality Inns De Funiak Springs hotels are provided below. Search for cheap and discount Quality Inns hotel rates in De Funiak Springs, FL for your upcoming individual or group travel. We list the best Quality Inns De Funiak Springs hotels/motels so you can review the De Funiak Springs Quality Inns hotel list below to find the perfect place.
Our page will also provide De Funiak Springs, FL hotels/properties that get similar quality scores of a Quality Inns.
Booking a group or meeting? Set up a group hotel block in De Funiak Springs FL
All Quality Inns in or near De Funiak Springs
More Quality Inns properties for De Funiak Springs
Comparable hotels to Quality Inns
Next: Show All Available Comparable Hotels with Pricing >


text:
Service Information
Funeral Service
Click here to expand.
Funeral Etiquette
Guest Book
"I am so sorry for your loss. I knew Don in Youth Group at First UMC when we were teenagers. He was always so full of life, and was always willing to help..." Bradlee Clegg (Flint, MI)
"Our prayers are with you and your family during this difficult time. Don was a wonderful support to the dewitt girls softball team and will be missed within..." The Brandell Family (Dewitt, MI)
"Jami ~ Sending our deepest sympathy and prayers for you and your family. May your memories bring you comfort in this difficult time. God bless you." Joann and Susan Dowker (Lansing, MI)
"Jami- I did not know your husband, but I wanted to let you know that you have been in my thoughts since I heard about the accident. Working with you in..."
"Jami, My prayers are with you and your family. May God watch over you and hold your hand during this time, giving you comfort. Shannon Schlegel" Shannon Schlegel (Ovid, MI)
Personalize Your Tribute
Make Your Plan Today