Ahmadinejad-mania Part II?

No, our good old friend Mahmoud is not invited back to campus to speak (thankfully). Instead the College Republicans here at Columbia thought it would be a good idea to bring another extremist to campus, only four days after an attempt to tout their diversity. David Horowitz, Columbia College 1959, will be on campus this October 26th as part of his campaign to generate attention for his "Islamo-Facism Awareness Week." Of course, you could just have a Fascism Awareness Week, because I'm sure that Muslims are not the only group of people who have fascists among them, but that would take the racist tones out of it, I suppose. Of course, this is not Mr. Horowitz's first brush with racism. First, let's look at a piece written by Horowitz on January 25, 2005 to the History News Network entitled "Why I am Not Celebrating John Hope Franklin's Birthday." In it, Horowitz restates that he believes "free" blacks and the "free" descendants of slaves (the quotes are mine, because how "free" were blacks in America during the late 19th century?) actually benefited from slavery. Nothing like hundreds of years of bondage and slave labor to really improve the social status of a class of people in the United States. He also goes so far as to suggest that Hope, an established academic, should be thankful for slavery because the namesake of his professorship, James B. Duke earned his money in tobacco, "one of the chief crops of the very system that had brought Franklin’s ancestors to this continent in chains" and Hope's failure to "appreciate these ironies" was sad. Of course, I would suggest reading the article yourself for the full context of these words, but having read the whole article, this is how I take Horowitz's words in the article.

The types of people who support Horowitz and who Horowitz supports reads like a who's-who of sub-par Americans. Karl Rove called one of Horowitz's books The Art of Political War a "must read." Not exactly the man that I would want praising me. Horowitz also seems to be an ardent supporter of Ann Coulter, who writes a column for his FrontPage Magazine. Coulter, of course, is no stranger to controversy, having said that the widows of 9/11 were enjoying the deaths of their husbands, has said we should invade Muslim countries and convert them all to Christianity, has called presidential John Edwards a faggot, and has said that her "only regret" regarding Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh was that he did not target the New York Times building. I suppose the killing 168 people (19 children) in a terrorist act (something that she hates wholeheartedly, or purports to) is not enough for Ann Coulter to regret happening. Coulter is also on the Islamo-Fasicsm that Horowitz seems to be spearheading. Another person on that roster is Rick Santorum, who has not only blamed Hurricane Katrina victims for what happened to them, but also said that we should punish them. Of course he's also had brushes with comparing homosexuality to bestiality, but there's just not enough time to go over all of this stuff. So, it seems that David Horowitz, while himself a controversial figure with some iffy logic concerning some issues, is further discredited by those that he surrounds himself with.

So am I saying do not invite David Horowitz to Columbia? No, because I was in support of Ahmadinejad coming here it would be highly hypocritical for me to say that Horowitz does not have the same right as Ahmadinejad. But the problem lies here: Ahmadinejad was invited to campus under the assumption (that proved correct) that he was not all right in the head and had views that were just ridiculous. Horowitz is being invited to campus (I believe by the College Republicans but the Spectator, in all its glorious fashion, did not exactly make that clear) as a legitimate speaker and, to my knowledge, will not be challenged by those who invited him. Essentially, it seems that the College Republicans have invited him because they - in essence - agree with his viewpoints. That's fine, people are entitled to their opinion. All I am saying is that I don't agree with him and the College Republicans are just legitimizing his rhetoric by inviting him and supporting his appearance rather than inviting him and challenging him on some of his more controversial stances. Maybe the College Republicans will surprise us, pull a Bollinger, and let Horowitz have it. I doubt it. Peace.

Oh yeah, and Sean Hannity's coming to campus, but no one really cares about him.

Photos - Top: David Horowitz (michigandaily.com), Bottom: A former slave with scars from enslavement, something that Horowitz seems to think helped the black race (www.time.com)

The Defense Screws Up and the People Pay for It

Yet another twist in the story of what Charlie calls "the scariest looking pairing he's ever seen." Yesterday Mahender Sabhnani and his wife Varsha were back in federal court on Long Island to answer to the allegation that they had violated their four and a half million dollar bail by running their perfume/scents business from outside of the confines of their home. Instead of ruling, U.S. District Judge Thomas Platt sent the pair back to their multi-million dollar mansion in Muttontown to wait until September 19, when he said he would rule on the case. Meanwhile, he instructed the prosecutors to get together with the defense privately to sort out all of the details. In court papers, however, it seems clear what happened. The bail that the Sabhnanis were released on stated that if the two wanted to continue to run their perfume business, then they should do it from their home and no place off site. Somehow, the Sabhnanis did not get the message and the defense attorneys who, from the way the court papers make it sound knew that the couple was violating parole, did not advise them of their misdeeds.

So, where does this leave everything? Well, the Sabhnanis are back at their Long Island palace despite clearly violating the conditions of their bail. The fact that their own defense attorneys did not advise them of their violation should not factor into it. At the end of the day they violated their bail which, in my opinion, they should not have received in the first place. Yet somehow Scaring and company get off the hook simply by saying to Judge Platt "Oops, my bad." I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if a poor person of any ethnicity violated the conditions of his or her bail and tried to be given a second chance simply by saying, "Well, nobody told me I couldn't do it," the judge would laugh as their ass was hauled back to Rikers. It seems that if you want second or third chances in life you need to be rich. Peace.

Photos - Top left: Mahender Sabhnani (www.indiequill.wordpress.com), Top right: Varsha Sabhnani (www.nypost.com), Bottom: The couple's home in Muttontown, NY (newsfeedresearcher.com)

Define: Irony

First off, apologies for not posting anything for over a week. I was on vacation at the Kane Resort in lovely Newton, MA and got caught up with a bunch of other things to do anything for this blog. Now, onto the story.

In an ironic twist in a bizarre story a Long Island, New York couple accused of enslaving two housekeepers have been granted bail - essentially freeing them until their trial for charges of federal forced labor and harboring undocumented immigrants. According to news reports, the couple - Varsha Mahender Sabhnani, 35, of Indonesia and Mahender Murlidhar Sabhnani, 51, of India - allegedly held two Indonesian women as housekeepers against their will paying them $100 a month that was sent to relatives abroad. The alleged enslavement lasted five years, from 2002 through 2007. But, it appears, the wealthy couple from Muttontown - a village of Nassau County whose median income is more than 3 times that of the rest of the nation - will be able to gain something that they held from these 2 women: freedom.

The best quote from the 1010WINS article today came from the couple's lawyer Stephen P. Scaring. "We're trying to get them out as soon as possible," he said. "They're excited to get home to their children." Something that the two Indonesian women that the couple held against their will could not do for 5 years. Looking more into Mr. Scaring reveals a past that many would call victorious. He defended Gerald Monter, who was accused of manslaughter, and won. He also won an acquittal for Walter Grabinowitz, a St. John's student accused of sexual assault. However, these two cases also show Scaring's choice of who to defend. Monter, a real estate developer on Long Island, had been convicted of bribing a witness prior to his manslaughter arrest. Then, he was involved in a semi-scandalous land deal in Suffolk County involving Canon USA and a property called The Pumpkin Farm. Grabinowitz was accused along with two other St. John's students, of sexually assaulting a woman at the college. Prosecutor Alice Vachss, who was the chief prosecutor of sex crimes in Queens at the time, said that the DA's office had botched the case. This seems pretty obvious as one of the six accused (it appears that there were several trials for different individuals) plead guilty to lesser charges and then agreed to testify against the others. I don't know if I would want to be in the same category as these two people, as the Sabhnani couple have placed themselves in by hiring Scaring. Besides, who quotes themselves on their own website? Peace.

Photos - Top: Varsha Mahender Sabhnani (www.nypost.com), Middle: Mahender Murlidhar Sabhnani (www.nypost.com), Bottom: Stephen P. Scaring (www.stephenpscaring.com)