Giving Both Cold Shoulders.

Conditions: Cough, Sniffle


Hiding From The Elephant In The Room.

You know, generally the idea of having a world conference on something is so that a bunch of nations can converse over differing opinions in the hope of finding a consensus that will work for everyone. Well that ideal was rejected by nations such as the U.S, Israel, Canada and Australia this week in the shadow of the world conference on racism, a conference said nations boycotted because of an interpretation that the conference was instead an attack on the nation of Israel. Huh?

Despite ongoing claims to the contrary by various right-wing pundits, however, the final document didn't contain any anti-Israel statements or language equating Zionism with racism. Efforts by some participating states to include that and similar objectionable language were defeated.

Indeed, the only mention of Israel in the final 61-page document was as follows:

We are concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation. We recognize the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent State and we recognize the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, and call upon all States to support the peace process and bring it to an early conclusion; We call for a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region in which all peoples shall co-exist and enjoy equality, justice and internationally recognized human rights, and security.

Why would the Obama administration find such a statement so reprehensible that it would boycott a conference whose focus isn't on Israel, but on ending racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerances? Since the document explicitly recognizes Israel's right to security, the Obama administration apparently objects to its formal recognition that Palestinians are under foreign occupation, and that they have a right to self-determination and statehood. Yet virtually the entire international community — including the United Nations, the World Court and a broad consensus of legal scholars — recognizes this reality.

Well, I guess it’s tricky to judge something when you’re standing on the scales. Still, boycotting the whole five-day conference comes across as just stupid, especially given America’s current station in world standings.

The Congressional Black Caucus, which strongly encouraged U.S. participation in the international meeting, stated that it was "deeply dismayed" by Obama's decision. "Had the United States sent a high-level delegation reflecting the richness and diversity of our country, it would have sent a powerful message to the world that we're ready to lead by example," the statement reads. "Instead, the administration opted to boycott the conference, a decision that does not advance the cause of combating racism and intolerance, but rather sets the cause back."

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) observed how the U.S. decision to boycott the conference was "inconsistent with the administration's policy of engaging with those we agree with and those we disagree with." She added that "the United States is making it more difficult for it to play a leadership role on UN Human Rights Council as it states it plans to do. This is a missed opportunity, plain and simple."

- alternet.org/

No doubt Iranian President Ajmadinejad’s standardly-inflammatory speech about Israel had an influence in how the conference was regarded as a whole. But is it fair that one speech clouds a conference on such a broad topic, lasting five days, and ultimately reaching a conclusion that everyone can agree with.

Steve Crawshaw of Human Rights Watch in New York says Western countries should have avoided falling into President Ajmadinejad's trap.

"What has been disappointing about this conference has been that all the focus has gone on the absurd and offensive comments by the Iranian president.

"Instead of focusing on the importance of confronting racism in the world today, the US refusal to attend and the last-minute pull-out by a number of other countries sent completely the wrong message that somehow the offensive words of Ahmadinejad could be seen as a dominant theme.

"The powerful nations of the world should stay to confront such nonsense and not run away.

"Multilateral diplomacy is by its very nature a complicated business. But the way to make this better is to engage consistently, not to stamp your foot and walk out in a sulk."

- news.bbc.co.uk/

Indeed. The division between politics and importance grows ever wider.



Commentary O' The Week.

- Danziger

Film Review: Monsters vs Aliens

Man, I can’t tell you how good it is to finally watch a well made, exciting and fun action film. Oh, wait, I can!! Monsters vs Aliens is a wildly whimsical and witty romp through a variety of old Sci-Fi cliches, given new life by Dreamworks animation. The plot revolves around a bunch of Monsters, kept locked up for 50-odd years by the American government, who are turned loose in order to fight an Alien invasion. It’s a terrific opportunity to let loose some wacky characters into a mad situation and see what happens.

Reese Witherspoon voices Susan, a girl about to get married who gets clocked by a meteorite and wakes up 50 foot tall, and in prison, just in time to get released to fight the Aliens when all she wants to do is go home and resume her former life. It really turns into an empowering episode for Susan, who ends up learning of her own strength and power while saving the world and kicking butt. The likes of Seth Rogan, Kiefer Sutherland and Hugh Laurie provide great characters of their own, and Steven Colbert is side-splittingly brilliant as the nutty President of the United States.

It’s all as mad as it sounds, but so carefully weaved together and warmed by Susan’s story that it all just clicks. Don’t bother with 3D, this is a good movie in it’s own right. The jokes are brilliant, the action sequences are exciting, and there’s a happy ending. Great stuff. Four tentacles out of Five.



- Peace Out