Should The U.S Have Boycotted The UN Conference On Racism?

Apparently,the U.S has decided that it will not attend a UN conference on racism.One of the reasons given was that Zionism is being compared to racism.And that,among other things,is unacceptable to the U.S.Remember when Rev. Jackson said that Barack Obama will stop "the zionist" influence in US policy if he became president.Looks like he was completely wrong about that!

Like me,many folks feel that it was a mistake for the U.S to boycott this important human rights event because they disagreed with the language & the ideology that was being presented there.Congresswoman Barbara Lee made an excellent point when she said that the Obama administration is being inconsistent with their policy of listening to those we don't agree with.Here's more from BBC News:

"The state department said it was "with regret" that the US had decided to boycott the conference.

"The text still contains language that reaffirms in toto the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action [DDPA] from 2001, which the United States has long said it is unable to support," it said in a statement.

"Its inclusion in the review conference document has the same effect as inserting that original text into the current document and re-adopting it.

"The DDPA singles out one particular conflict and prejudges key issues that can only be resolved in negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians.

"The United States also has serious concerns with relatively new additions to the text regarding 'incitement', that run counter to the US commitment to unfettered free speech."

Internal debate has raged in the US for weeks on whether to attend, the Associated Press news agency reports from Washington.

Pro-Israel groups vehemently opposed participation while human rights advocates and organisations like TransAfrica and members of the Congressional Black Caucus thought it was important to attend.

Immediately after the announcement, Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who heads the black caucus in Congress, said the group was "deeply dismayed" by the boycott.

"This decision is inconsistent with the administration's policy of engaging with those we agree with and those we disagree with..." she said.

"The US 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."(END OF EXCERPT)Read the whole article here.

Mel Gibson Should Pay His Wife A $500 Million Divorce Settlement!

Mel Gibson has embarrassed his wife on so many occasions.From his drunken racist rants to Gibson's infidelity,poor Robyn has endured more than the pain of 7 childbirths.If anybody deserves half of her husband's earnings,it is Robyn Moore!Can you believe she put up with him for as long as she did? Hopefully,Robyn enjoyed at least half of the 28 yrs. that she was married to this creep!

Here's more on what may turn out to be one hell of a costly divorce from People:

"Mel Gibson may soon be writing one of the biggest checks of his life – to his wife.

With no indication that the estranged couple – who married 28 years ago – had a prenup, Robyn Gibson, 53, is legally entitled in their divorce to half of everything the actor-director-producer earned from their marriage in 1980 to the date of their separation: A fortune estimated at close to $1 billion.

"This could easily be one of the biggest divorce settlements in Hollywood history," says Los Angeles family lawyer Lynn Soodik, who's not involved with the case. "Any attorney would advise her to take half."(END OF EXCERPT)Read the rest here.

Human Rights Groups Want President Obama To Do More Than Release The CIA Interrogation Memos!

I would like someone to answer for the fact that the law was bent so that the Bush administration could justify the use of torture.As we all know,that violates the Geneva convention & makes the United States look like a hypocrite in the eyes of the world!I mean,how civilized are we if we condone torture?

But,some conservatives are angry that President Obama gave away CIA interrogation secrets.They say that those methods worked because there have not been any more terrorist attacks in the U.S. And their argument is that this will jeopardize the safety of Americans.Isn't it funny how conservatives always argue for transparency in government,but they are mad because President Obama gave the public the truth about torture?!!

Bush said that we did not torture,but we did!That should have been exposed & I'm glad that it was.People call President Obama arrogant,but look at how condescending George Bush was when he lied about not torturing people in this video.And some folks want to defend his actions.I cannot understand that!I mean if you are a conservative worried about government expansion,then you should be outraged by these documents.Because George Bush used the "war on terror" to increase his executive power.And push all legal boundaries on torture.


Even though President Obama did release those CIA documents,I do not believe that he will go any further.And the possibility that there will be no repercussions for the torture that happened during President Bush's time in office has a lot of human rights groups upset!Here's more from CNN:

"The decision to release the memos was met with criticism among conservatives and CIA veterans who warned that the highly detailed documents would serve as a counterinterrogation training manual for Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

Former CIA Director Michael Hayden said Thursday that the release of the memos would make the country less safe.

The documents spell out in often disconcerting detail how interrogation methods were to be administered.

Prisoners could be kept shackled in a standing position for as many as 180 hours. The documents provide statistics, noting that more than a dozen CIA prisoners had been deprived of sleep for at least 48 hours, three for more than 96, and one for the nearly eight-day maximum stated on one memo. The documents include elaborate legal debate over waterboarding, the interrogation technique that makes a prisoner believe he is in imminent danger of drowning. The memos spell out that a prisoner could be waterboarded at most six times during a two-hour session, and they require an attending physician to be on duty in case a prisoner didn't recover after being returned to an upright position.

In that event, "the intervening physician would perform a tracheotomy," said a May 10, 2005, memo.

The memos were crafted by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, a unit at the center of a series of legal debates during the Bush administration over the limits of executive power and counterterrorism tactics.

The memos were designed to fill in details left out of more theoretical opinions—some of which eventually surfaced publicly—that were produced by the Justice Department as it sought to lay out the legal boundaries of the Bush administration's "war on terror."

The four documents cover a period from 2002 until 2005, when the government was recalculating its approach to detention and interrogation matters in the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq.

The release of the documents was preceded by months of jostling between CIA and Justice Department officials over how much to disclose. A Justice Department official said Atty. Gen. Eric Holder urged full disclosure to help restore trust in a department that had been beleaguered by criticism that it had twisted the law to fit the Bush administration's political ends.

The release of the memos was driven to a large degree by an ACLU lawsuit aimed at forcing the government to disclose secret rulings issued in connection with the CIA's detention and interrogation programs.

But Obama's decision to shield agency employees from legal liability drew criticism from human-rights groups. Holder said the Justice Department would provide legal representation to CIA employees facing legal challenge in the United States or overseas."(END OF EXCERPT)Read the whole article here.