<p>Grandstanding at its finest. A tip of the ol’ time political hat to Mitt. What’s next? Rescuing a kitten in a tree?</p>
<p>I agree with marite. Let the fella talk. We can stand it without it doing us harm and it may do some good. You never know. (I, too, sense some back channel diplomacy.;))</p>
<p>I would love to see Jimmy Carter go to Iran, get down on his hands and knees, and apologize.</p>
<p>poetsheart,</p>
<p>We’re more critical of Pat Robertson and Ann Coulter because they’re our own. It’s like a parent scolding a child, yet protecting the same child from the scolding of others.</p>
<p>Anyway, what harm does letting him speak bring us? I personally disagree with about 99.99% of the things he has to say, but I don’t see how stonewalling the thing really helps either. Let him verbally poo all over himself and just further confirm that Iran needs some serious paradigmatic changes.</p>
<p>Mixing apples and oranges here. I agree with Poetsheart’s point. Let him talk on his own dime. He can afford his own oil-financed private security, and he will absolutely be met by a cadre of obsequious fawners. Yawn, what a surprise, it’s Harvard, our European government-in-exile. I also agree with Curmudgeon–what an easy, cost-effective announcement to make when you’re beginning a campaign. No taxpayer funded security for a guy who will already have gunslingers on his own diplomatic visa. I like smart guys.</p>
<p>Ok, it pretty obvious no one has really understood what I was trying to say. I said: “Bring Khatami, sure. But then don’t behave as if Rumsfeld has nothing worth hearing.” So you see, I have no problem with Khatami being invited to speak. I have issues with showing him all the diplomacy and respect in the world, while painting certain American politicos as devil spawn (I happen to suspect that it’s true in many cases, btw;), but that’s not the point.</p>
<p>“We’re more critical of Pat Robertson and Ann Coulter because they’re our own. It’s like a parent scolding a child, yet protecting the same child from the scolding of others.”</p>
<p>You’re kidding, right? When have we ever shown an inclination to “protect” the likes of Coulter or Robertson from the “scolding of others”. We’re too busy wearing out the 9 tails on them ourselves. I rather doubt that anyone here on CC sees them in a “parental” light. </p>
<p>But if you insist on the parental metaphor, I’d liken it more in this way: It’s like inviting the registered sex offender across the street for tea and cake, while turning your own kid into the police for downloading internet porn.</p>
<p>Ok, it pretty obvious no one has really understood what I was trying to say. I said: “Bring Khatami, sure. But then don’t behave as if Rumsfeld has nothing worth hearing.” So you see, I have no problem with Khatami being invited to speak. I have issues with showing him all the diplomacy and respect in the world, while painting certain American politicos as devil spawn (I happen to suspect that it’s true in many cases, btw;), but that’s not the point.</p>
<p>“We’re more critical of Pat Robertson and Ann Coulter because they’re our own. It’s like a parent scolding a child, yet protecting the same child from the scolding of others.”</p>
<p>You’re kidding, right? When have we ever shown an inclination to “protect” the likes of Coulter or Robertson from the “scolding of others”. We’re too busy wearing out the 9 tails on them ourselves. I rather doubt that anyone here on CC sees them in a “parental” light. </p>
<p>But if you insist on the parental metaphor, I’d liken it more in this way: It’s like inviting the registered sex offender across the street for tea and cake, while turning your own kid into the police for downloading internet porn.</p>
<p>Sorry for the double post. Pages loading extremely slowly. Got impatient.</p>
<p>I read a little about Khatami’s speech in Chicago. It was “moderate” in its tone and content, asking Muslims to turn away from radical theists and terrorists and to reach ou to the west. In Iran the president has little real authority, the religious leaders make the critical decisions, and choose the candidates who can run for president. Khatami ran as the most “liberal” of the candidates, which is why he won 70% of the vote. In the most recent election the Khatami wing was, I believe, not allowed to run their strongest candidates, thus many moderates/liberals did not vote, and we got the current guy who more closely reflects Iran’s religious leaders’ views. Reaching out to those willing to talk is not necessarily a bad idea.</p>
<p>poetsheart,</p>
<p>I got your point, but…nevermind.</p>
<p>I’ve got to learn that these threads are never worth it. If I don’t jump on Khatami for being the worst thing since Hitler, someone will come in and say how I love Iran and hate America. </p>
<p>It’s a formula that I’m well-aware of and a bit tired of.</p>
<p>Anyway, the point of my metaphor was that we’re more critical of our own children than we sometimes should be because we’re comfortable scolding them. That’s all.</p>
<p>“And despite the fact that Khatami articulates views that I find loathsome”</p>
<p>Just out of curiosity, can I ask what they are? Is it the increased number of women in government, the expansion of press freedoms and civil liberties, or the growth of publicly supported universities?</p>
<p>“In Iran the president has little real authority, the religious leaders make the critical decisions, and choose the candidates who can run for president.”</p>
<p>Actually, it is more complex than that. The loser of the last election, Rafsanjani, significantly more liberal than Ahmadinejad, was appointed head of the Councilor Powers, which essentially gives him power oover the President when there are conflicts between the branches of government. The upshot of that is that the religious leaders have shown, by their action, that they are more moderate than the current President.</p>
<p>while we are on the subject of hypocrites…if US Presidents can be allowed to speak there…why not Khatami?</p>
<p>Ari, I think we agree more than we disagree on the merits of Khatami coming to speak. I’d personally be more than willing to hear what he has to say. I just believe that academic institutions and those claiming to be “thinking people” should at least make an effort to curtail rampant intellectual hypocrisy. </p>
<p>“I’ve got to learn that these threads are never worth it. If I don’t jump on Khatami for being the worst thing since Hitler, someone will come in and say how I love Iran and hate America.”</p>
<p>It might benefit you to reread what I wrote, as I don’t believe I ever said anyone should paint Khatami as the worst thing since Hitler, or that failure to do so brands one as unamerican. If you feel indicted by a phantom criticism, maybe you should ask yourself why that is. </p>
<p>“Anyway, the point of my metaphor was that we’re more critical of our own children than we sometimes should be because we’re comfortable scolding them. That’s all.”</p>
<p>Thanks, I understand the analogy better now. We should most certainly feel free to scold our children when they have done wrong. But we shouldn’t at the same time make excuses for the similar behavior from the brat next door. I’m not accusing you of doing this, Ari. I don’t question your patriotism. This isn’t even about patriotism. It’s about intellectual hypocrisy. I’m just sick of it oozing from the walls of academia, that’s all.</p>
<p>“while we are on the subject of hypocrites…if US Presidents can be allowed to speak there…why not Khatami?”</p>
<p>Once more, with feeling: Khatami being allowed to speak is not the issue (at least not with me). Harvard should pick up the tab for security, though. If you throw a party, do you ask the neighbors to pay for it?</p>
<p>
It is my understanding that Khatami is not an official state visitor. This is a private visit to speak at various venues. So, actually, even if he were someone I’d want to listen to, I don’t think he should receive any tax-payer supported security. I think that either he or his hosts should provide the protection that’s deemed necessary.<br>
From today’s Boston Globe:
I hope one of the Harvard students at least asks about this issue.</p>
<p>Move-in day is Saturday; the speech is scheduled for Sunday. I don’t know how many students will be aware of Khatami’s presence, though I hope that either students or members of the audience will ask about the crackdown.</p>
<p>I don’t know, either, if Romney is departing from usual procedures for an important foreign visitor who is not on official state visit. I remember that when JiangZemin visited Harvard, the tab for was shared between the Harvard and the City of Cambridge police.</p>
<p>“If you throw a party, do you ask the neighbors to pay for it?”</p>
<p>All the time. It is called community policing. We don’t have to hire Pinkertons like they did 150 years ago, thank goodness! If you go swimming at the public beach, I’m happy to pay for YOUR lifeguard, too. Oh, and to provide fire services if your Aunt Sadie from out of town leaves the stove on, and smoke pours out from your kitchen window. </p>
<p>Hey, we’d provide police services if Bill Clinton shows up too. But no one is likely to ask about the 500,000 dead children. Wonder if he’d say, like his Secretary of State (the Wellesley grad), “it was worth it.”</p>
<p>Mini, community policing is still availabe to Khatami. If he has a car accident, I’m sure the local police would show up. If someone attempts to rob him, the same. However, if I throw a barbecue, and a very special friend flies into town to attend, I don’t expect that the state will provide a motorcade.</p>
<p>I don’t agree with many of Clinton’s positions, but as a former US President, he is entitled to Secret Service protection and I’m sure Governor Romney would be happy to provide state police. But Khatami is not a current head of state, nor a former US President. So as far as I’m concerned, he’s not entitled to anything that I, as an ordinary citizen, am not entitled to.</p>
<p>But Khatami didn’t ask for ANY police. If Harvard wants to negotiate with the Cambridge police for help - as they would with Margaret Thatcher or Silvio Burlesconi or any other international figure - that’s their prerogative. (Babykiller Clinton would get his regardless.) The police are not there to protect Khatami (or Thatcher) per se, but to prevent disruption in the lives of the citizens of Harvard/Cambridge. Last time I looked, that’s one of the things the police are there for, and the politics of the visiting dignitary are absolutely irrelevant.</p>
<p>To pick up on Mini’s point, during Jiang Zeming’s visits, there were lots of protests that were on the streets, which, though, running through the Harvard campus were part of the City of Cambridge. In fact, I suspect that the Harvard police was doing its best to keep protesters off lawns and buildings that were actually Harvard property. So the City of Cambridge footed the bill for keeping order among protesters (Cambridge seems to be home to a large contingent of Tibetan exiles and an even larger community of their supporters, judging by the number of Free Tibet bumper stickers).</p>
<p>According to a Crimson report today, the U.S. State Dept., Boston Police, Cambridge Police, and Harvard Police are cooperating to provide protection for Khatami and his entourage, as well as for the rest of us.</p>