Snap Judgments

FoxNews reports that Iranian President Ahmadinejad has, again, verbally attacked both Israel and the United States, this time (ironically) at a racism conference sponsored by the United Nations. Why doesn't this surprise me? I really didn't think that President Obama's attempt to reach out to the Iranians with a speech on their TV would really open dialog between the two countries; so I wasn't surprised when it's obvious that nothing will open the minds of the Iranian leaders. They've made up their minds; Israel and it's supporters (most notably the United States) are cruel, racist and evil; and need to be wiped off the face of the earth. They've made their judgment and it will stand; no matter what.

Ever know someone like that; someone who makes their mind and won't change it? Like the Iranian leaders, they tend to be scary. Now I'm not talking about someone who has principles and lives by them. I'm talking about someone who makes a snap judgment about a person, place or thing, based on limited or superficial information, and refuses to listen to "the other side of the story" or look beyond the surface.

I've found myself doing just that, making a judgment about a person based on how they looked, and I learned a huge lesson when I was proven wrong. I met a certain person at a workshop a couple of years ago. This person was (by far) not the most attractive person I've ever met and additionally had some very annoying verbal habits. I immediately found myself put off by this person, and at first wasn't willing to look past the person's homeliness or listen to this person's discussions. It wasn't until I forced myself to look at my own reaction to this person's surface characteristics and feel shame for it, that I was able to open up to this person and find out just what a wonderful, warm, and intelligent friend this person could be. This person's inputs made the workshop a success and I would have missed out if I hadn't been able to see that I was wrong for making a snap judgment based on purely surface characteristics.

I think that's why I like the video of British singer Susan Boyle. (See my post on Dreamin'.) Ms Boyle is certainly not the prototype for a young (she's 47 years old), svelte, "hip," singing-star. In fact, she's just about everything opposite. She's an unemployed woman "of certain age," who stayed home to care for her elderly mother, rather than pursue her dream of being a singing star. You can tell from the reactions of the judges and the crowd that they expected Ms Boyle to be something of a joke; purely based on her appearance and her mannerisms. Like I did, they made a snap judgment based on superficial things. Then she started singing and it was wonderful. Her voice is as beautiful as her appearance is not. I hope that Ms Boyle achieves her dream of being a singing star, she certainly has the talent for it. I also hope that Ms Boyle's success will teach us that difficult lesson: we should not make snap judgments based on superficial things. People are complicated beings and there's always more to them that what appears on the surface.

I don't think the Iranian leadership will ever open their minds and look at their judgment that Israel should not exist, and that her supporters are "racist." They are so firmly entrenched in their judgment that no amount of outreach and dialogue, by the US or any other country, will change their minds. I hope that President Obama and his foreign policy advisers realize this simple fact, that the Iranians are entrenched in their racist philosophy and flawed judgment, and I hope they realize it soon.

What Would It Prove?

“I am ready for a debate with the U.S. presidential candidates over global issues in the presence of the media at the U.N. Headquarters.” -- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

So FoxNews and the AFP report that Iran’s President wants to debate either Senator Obama and Senator McCain, or both, while he’s in New York visiting the U.N.? But only if the debate takes place in the presence of the media. Right . . . I wonder if either candidate would seriously consider taking him up on his offer. What would it prove? That President Ahmadinejad is more-than-slightly off kilter? We all know that. That President Ahmadinejad likes to use the media to advance his unrealistic world-view? We all know that. That President Ahmadinejad, and the regime he represents, is a threat to world peace. Again, we all know that. So what would it prove? Nothing.

I don’t think Senator McCain would consider giving this guy more status than he deserves by engaging in a debate in front of the U.N. and the media. He’s too smart and too savvy. On the other hand, Senator Obama has, in the past, said that he’d negotiate with leaders of Iran and Syria if he’s elected. Maybe he’d consider a debate instead of a negotiation. After all, Senator Obama has called for tougher U.N. sanctions on Iran, saying that sanctions need to have some teeth; and President Ahmadinejad has more or less said “bring it on.” According to President Ahmadinejad, “Those who want to impose sanctions are demonstrating their helplessness.” He’s basically challenged the U.N. and other countries to impose sanctions for defying the U.N.’s call to halt uranium enrichment and for stalling the U.N.’s investigation into Iran’s nuclear program. He said “Let them impose sanctions against us . . . The more they impose sanctions, the more we thank God.” So, it appears there’s a definite point of conflict between Senator Obama’s call for tougher sanctions and President Ahmadinejad’s challenge to set the sanctions. Perhaps that could be an interesting topic for a debate . . . or negotiation. If, of course, anyone wanted to listen to hot air being dispelled by two blowhards who are better at talking than thinking.