In her column last Saturday, D. Parvaz recounted some of the charges against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the mouthpiece for the evil Tehran regime.

He's tight with President Bush's bombastic nemesis, Hugo Chavez. He's quoted as saying that Israel should be wiped off the map. He locks up and releases academics at will.  Oh, and then there's his nuclear program, one he insists is for energy alone. The International Atomic Energy Agency, that body of know-nothing dilettantes, agrees, while Bush, that master of Middle East strategist (see: Iraq) insists otherwise.

(Anyone who thinks that the IAEA has been an effective watchdog is unfamiliar with its history.)

In today's editorial, she even mentions some of his human rights problems, though she doesn't seem much bothered by them.

Ahmadinejad also spoke about women's rights in Iran, where women aren't as restricted as they are in Saudi Arabia, but . . . let's put it this way: Few women flee from elsewhere to Iran seeking liberties.  He also said that homosexuals don't exist in Iran (a common stance in Muslim countries), a laughable claim given that gay clubs are a reality in Iran.  Besides, Iran executed two gay teenage boys in 2005.  The government later said the two were hanged for raping another boy.

(The editorial is unsigned, but from the content I am nearly certain it was written by Parvaz.)

Eric Scheie has a picture of that hanging, along with much more, for those who doubt that Ahmadinejad's regime represses homosexuals.  (Warning: The previous post has extensive quotes from Amanda Marcotte, who worked, briefly, for the Edwards campaign.  It contains much that is unsuitable for children, or even most offices.)  And, though Parvaz does not mention it, the regime also executed a 16 year old girl for adultery, or perhaps I should say "adultery", since her crime appears to be that she was a rape victim.

Parvaz does not mention, in either piece, some of the regime's other sins, sins that even the leftist president of Columbia University mentioned in yesterday's introduction.

Mr. Bollinger praised himself and Columbia for showing they believed in freedom of speech by inviting the Iranian president, then continued his attack.  He said it was "well documented" that Iran was a state sponsor of terrorism, accused Iran of fighting a proxy war against the United States in Iraq and questioned why Iran has refused "to adhere to the international standards" of disclosure for its nuclear program.

I do not know why Parvaz does not mention those sins, perhaps because she does not consider them sins, or perhaps because she didn't have enough space.

But even the sins she does mention should be enough to make this mobster's mouthpiece an unacceptable guest at a respectable, or at least once respectable, university.  Especially, one would think, for those who believe that no nation should repress women or persecute homosexuals.

Parvaz does not come to that obvious conclusion, and so I am left wondering what Ahmadinejad could do that would change her mind.  I can think of only one possibility off hand:  If Ahmadinejad were to confess his sins, seek refuge in the United States, and then begin to fight terrorism, instead of sponsoring it, then I believe that Parvaz would think he should not be invited to speak at Columbia.

I can't think of anything less that would change her mind.  But I may be unimaginative today.  If you can think of something else that would make Parvaz change her mind, share your thoughts in the comments below.

(Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what the "D." stands for, and why Parvaz does not want us to know her first name?)

More:  With a little bit of searching and some help from a commenter, I found the answer to one of my questions; her first name is "Dorothy".  And the same search explained that odd combination.  Her mother was American and her father Iranian.  She spent the first few years of her life in Iran.  She left Iran, for reasons that I have not seen explained, and, somehow, became a Canadian citizen.

In choosing to go by "D. Parvaz" she is choosing to hide the American side of her heritage.  Her odd background may help explain her confusion — to put it kindly — on the war on terror.

Those who think that I have been unfair in suggesting that she is confused about the war on terror, the Iranian regime, and its mouthpiece, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, may want to look at this post, where she asks whether Ahmadinejad is "hot" — and then take another look at those hanging victims.  (No word on whether Parvaz plans to put up another post asking whether Hitler was "hot".)