Nadine,
Thanks for the Jerusalem Post article on the Durban Conference. I've read it thoroughly and have tucked the charges away in my memory.
But, as you might expect, they are bracketed. I gather there are defenses, counter ways of stacking up the same story, even different stories of what happened. If I become interested I'll check those out as well.
Our exchange started over Mary Robinsons' tenure. I'm impressed; you asked how could anyone be impressed given the Durban Conference. I noted that whatever may have happened at Durban, I thought that was only part of the story of her tenure. The Post article doesn't change that impression.
I'm still at the following point. Let's assume, just for arguments sake, that the Post story is accurate. To read Robinsons' tenure on the basis of only that one thing is to be quite unfair. One needs to look at her full record. What I've seen of that, I'm impressed.
But I should also add that I have problems with stories like the Post story. My paradigm now for these kinds of stories, hatchet jobs, is the Washington Times treatment of the NEA curricular proposal. Find some small item that may or may not reflect the intents of the organization, make that the full story, and never apologize.
Having said that, the Post story is more than that. At least more detail. So, rather than discard it, I'll definitely keep it in mind.
Thanks again. |
