Reisunorg

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran gave a talk at Columbia University today, causing a lot of criticisms and protests. The President of Columbia, Lee C. Bollinger, did the right thing at first, defending Columbia’s decision to host Ahmadinejad, and stressing the need for universities to be places where differing viewpoints and opinions are discussed. Bollinger, however, then went on a tirade, criticizing the president of Iran on a number of issues (mostly true or with merit), including his views on Israel, women and gays, nuclear enriching programs, and terrorism. While Bollinger had every right as a citizen as well as president of Columbia to make these comments, to me it appeared to be very unprofessional. Bollinger does not need to agree with Ahmadinejad or even like what he represents, but I don’t think there is any need to publicly denounce and humiliate a speaker before they give their invited talk. It appears almost that Bollinger invited Ahmadinejad to give a talk for the sole purpose of criticizing him prior to his speech; that would make Bollinger very petty indeed. Ahmadinejad responded in a graceful way, pointing out that it is not helpful to draw conclusions and “innoculate” the audience before the speech is even given.

 This is not to say the grievances and criticisms against Iran and Ahmadinejad are unwarranted. I believe though that there is no excuse not to be at least civil in our discourse. There is too much venom and vitriol being spewed forth within our country these days, democrats vs republicans, fundamentalists vs agnostics, etc. that there is very little room for debate or for finding a common ground. There seems to be a deep seated need for Americans to have a poster-child of evil to revile and hate, regardless of facts or political nuances. It is the very same demonization of Saddam Hussein (an erstwhile ally of Cheny, Rumsfeld, and other neo-cons) that has led us to this very messy juncture, where we keep putting money and lives in Iraq with no clear objectives (“winning” by itself is not an objective) or plan.

Defenders of A.G. Gonzales keep mentioning that he is a “fine,” “decent,” “upstanding” man. I think that misses the point, either intentionally or not. I believe religious and non-religious people will agree that all human beings are fallible, and that God is the only infallible being. Given that, it makes no difference how good or honest a person is, anyone is capable of making mistakes or succombing to temptation, that is what makes human beings human.

I am more than willing to believe Alberto Gonzales the person is a decent honest person. That does not mean he gets a free pass or some carte blanche mandate to do whatever he wants without scrutiny. If mistakes were made, it is important to find out what they were, and who made them, not hide behind the “but he is a decent person” excuse.

 This country was founded with “In God We Trust,” not our elected politicians or their political appointees.

As I contemplate a career change, from military related to health related, I wonder how best can we improve the health care system of the US. By now, I think everyone would argee that we have serious problems. It’s just that no one wants to make the difficult choices to “fix” it, or can’t seem to agree what a “fix” would constitute.

One common complaint I hear about universal healthcare is lack of choice (which I can’t answer to). The other seems to be the sentiment of “why should my taxes pay for the healthcare of someone [poor,lazy,etc]?” I think this is incredibly short-sighted. How can our companies, large and small, compete internationally with other companies that don’t have to worry about pensions or healthcare? Rather than think so parochially about whether a fellow American might deserve your tax dollars in health care, you should worry about some other country’s citizens stealing your job or livelihood because they are cheaper to employ.