I was listening to Sean Hannity on my way home from work today. I know, I know. But I had such a great day at work that I needed to even it out. I couldn’t think of anything more irritating than Hannity that could accomplish my goal in a 23 minute commute.
Of course, he was talking about Ahmadinejad at Columbia, and of course, he didn’t give Lee Bollinger any credit for taking Ahmadinejad to task. Instead, he went on an incoherent rant the point of which (I think) was that the only reason Bollinger went after Ahmadinejad was that he’d received so much bad publicity and pressure.
Loyal readers of this blog can probably guess that I don’t agree with liberal academia about very much. But I hope that, in general, I call an ace and ace and a spade a shovel. Bollinger did exactly what he should have done in this situation. He took the opportunity to ask some very tough questions of Ahmadinejad that he looked like a fool for dodging and would have exposed himself as a turd if he’d answered.
Hannity’s stance on what happened is about as stupid as he is. This was a classic “damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation”. Nothing could have made him happy. I for one am glad these questions were directly asked, and I don’t care if it was only in order to spite some neo-cons, though I doubt that was the actual motivation.
In fact, spite is one of the best reasons I can think of.