Noonan on the Ahmadinejad Appearance

I forgot to post this earlier today, but tomorrow is my "comics and fun" day so I wanted to post it tonight. I was really surprised by the vitriol spewed at anyone this past week who intimated that maybe the President of Iran should be allowed to speak at Columbia. It seemed to me like this was a great opportunity for a little-understood world leader to present himself, and explain his actions and philosophies. Especially since it seems to be common knowledge that at some time in the near - but unspecified - future, our two nations could be at war. What better way to begin to understand the enemy.

But most people seemed to feel that his views did not deserve even a cursory hearing. It was made worse when, during the introduction to the speech, the President of Columbia insulted and belittled Ahmadinejad. Are we really the champions of Free Speech, when we feel a need to pre-emptively protect ourselves from it? I thought Peggy Noonan really summed up my feelings in her article from Friday on this issue.

Is it necessary to say when one speaks of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that you disapprove of him, disagree with him, believe him a wicked fellow and are not amused that he means to have missiles aimed at us and our friends? If it is, I am happy to say it. Who, really, isn't?
But this has been our history: to let all speak and to fear no one. That's a good history to continue. The Council on Foreign Relations was right to invite him to speak last year--that is the council's job, to hear, listen and parse--and Columbia University was well within its rights to let him speak this year. Though, in what is now apparently Columbia tradition, the stage was once again stormed, but this time verbally, and by a university president whose aggression seemed sharpened by fear.

There were two revealing moments in Ahmadinejad's appearance. The first is that in his litany of complaint against the United States he seemed not to remember the taking and abuse of American diplomatic hostages in 1979. An odd thing to forget since he is said to have been part of that operation. The second was the moment when he seemed to assert that his nation does not have homosexuals. This won derisive laughter, and might have been a learning moment for him; dictators don't face derisive from crowds back home.

That is the thing about Free Speech. It allows great men to show their greatness. And it allows small men to show their paucity of wit and thought. By trying to silence a small man, we simply allow him to seem big to his followers and deny ourselves the chance to get to know just how dangerous he may be.

I think I have decided NO on the Immigration Bill

I am one of those who has been voting "Undecided" in the poll about the new immigration bill. On the one hand, I agree very much that the current system is broken, both for legal immigrants and for illegal immigrants, and I am not against the idea of a limited amnesty to clear the slate and let us begin again anew. On the other hand, I have found it hard to break through the long list of options here and get an idea of what is really being done. I am a great believer that we are a nation of immigrants (unless your ancestors were amerindians) and that the willingness to accept anyone who is willing to work hard and embrace our culture is one of the things which has made America great.

The arguments against this bill by most Conservatives have not been convincing to me. Those who claim amnsesty can not work and point to the 1986 bill, seem too hide-bound to me. Those who claim it can't work because we have too many imigrants already, seem to have a limited vision. And those who claim we have too few whites in the country already seem rascist to me. The arguments against the bill by Liberals are even less convincing. Those who claim it is splitting up families are ignoring the reality of immigration - that it is a grand gamble and that by breaking the law by entering a land outside its system you are placing yourself outside its protections. And those who claim that it is punishing unskilled workers don't seem to understand that we are not compelled to take anyone who wants to come. It is reasonable to favor those will skills we need.

The arguments for the bill have likewise been unconvincing. Most say simply "We need to do something, and this is the only bill that could possibly pass." They point to a provision for everyone in the bill. What is telling to me is that few to none are pointing anything and saying "This will work." They are just saying "It is the best we can do." I am a great believer in compromise as an engine of democracy, but not compromise for its own sake.

Peggy Noonan has finally made a compelling argument to me. And it is tellingly simple. The bill is too complex to work, and too complicated to enforce. And she is right. I have a friend whose in-laws are legal immigrants, here for political assylum. They have been caught up in the immigration system for years, and every few years have to live in fear for their lives as a judge combs through the REAMS of immigration law to figure out if they are still allowed to stay. If they go back, they die. Simple as that. But not so simple for a judge, who has to decide if their deaths are enough to justify staying here. It should be simple.

There, a decision is made. I can't vote on this myself, but I hope my representatives are listening.