Please Pray for the Food Crisis

Last week in Haiti, we saw violence spill over between troops and citizens as they attempted to storm the Presidential grounds. The reason? Massive food shortages around the world is leaving people in already dire situations in an even more threatening place. A saw a video recently on cnn.com about the "mud pies" that people in Haiti are making, selling and eating on the street -- due to the food scarcity.

More than 100 million people are being driven into deeper poverty. ONE HUNDRED MILLION. Can you even imagine? The world press corps has labeled this troubling emergence the "silent tsunami". UN feeding programs that feed 20 Million children are being threatened.

Josette Sheeran is the executive director of the World Food Program, she said, "This is the new face of hunger -- the millions of people who were not in the urgent hunger category six months ago NOW ARE. The world's misery index is rising." Sheeran also said that food prices are at their highest levels since 1945.

25,000 people a day are dying of hunger conditions. One child dies every five, (5, FIVE) seconds from hunger related causes.

Sheeran told reporters that the price of a ton of rice has risen from $460 to $1000 in less than two months. In two months, the price of rice has more than doubled. For people living on less than a dollar a day, in places where a cup of rice consists of the majority of their meals....this is catastrophic.
The reason??
- Rising fuel prices, droughts throughout the world, demand in huge countries (China, India, etc) and the diversion of crops for biofuel production.

How can you/I/we help? In the short term -- donations to emergency aid relief organizations such as the World Food Program, OXFAM, and others. Because of the gas prices and the droughts (which limit both the production and the supply ends) there is no foreseeable end to the price rise.
Long term -- invest in organizations that center around development and self-sustainability. Organizations that work towards fresh water resources through drilling and farming techniques (such as Staff of Hope, Life Water and Living Water) offer the best opportunity for long term security. If folks can control their own resources and build towards the future, they are less susceptible to be at the hands of relief workers.

We need to act. We need to pray. In the time it has taken you to read this short post -- a couple of minutes maybe -- more than a dozen children have died from hunger and hunger related issues. At least I'm enjoying my cup of coffee.

Hey Bill, Give It A Rest

As you might have noticed, I've posted a few different Hillary Clinton claims and stories on this blog...mostly because I've found them to be fairly troubling. I want to say that when the Primaries began, I was pretty partial between Barack and Hillary. I thought Barack represented the politics of the future, a buzz and excitement about the opportunities, and that Hillary was "old school" politics, but I thought both would be good in office.

At this point, I've become extremely weary of the Hillary campaign. Divisive politics, a lot of media games, posturing....it's just tired. I actually still think Hillary would do a pretty decent job as President, but her style and approach has really turned me off to her as a person. (what's more, I actually think she's "better than that", much of her posturing due to the campaign's fear of coming off "weak" or "feminine" -- a sad reflection of our society because I agree that they need to be cautious with that.)

What's adding to this is the disappointing words from former Prez Bill Clinton. A man I have had great respect for (I would say admiration if it weren't for the extramarital affairs). One thing that typically stands out in my mind about past President's is their grace -- although I'm not sure this trend will continue with George W. Even with Bush Sr and Reagan, although I'm not crazy about some of their policies, there is an aura of respect and worth that stands out as they continue(d) to make a positive impact after their time in office.

That's where Bill gets me. He has come off these past six months as ANYTHING but gracious, adding only more bitter taste to the Clinton campaign. His comments in South Carolina have been debated on their intent and impact, but it was fairly clear to me, that his comments bore some aspect of race and ethnicity. (Bill does have a good record of working for rights for minorities, but he is still NOT a minority and is in no way excluded from the ability to make insensitive comments.) NOW, he's popping off again, with some very disturbing, "politics as usual" rhetoric...I think he could start to stain his legacy even more from this kind of graceless behavior (stain pun not intended).

- Bill Clinton also weighed in last week, saying, "This is contact sport if you don't want to play keep your uniform off." (from cnn.com)

Really Bill? Politics is a contact sport? I thought we were talking about impacting our nation and the people within it. Not pushing and shoving to get to a place where we "win". Keep your uniform off? So because Obama doesn't want to be in a "full contact sport" he shouldn't "play"? Wow...that's affirming.

- On the eve of Tuesday’s critical Pennsylvania primary, former President Bill Clinton accused Barack Obama’s campaign of playing the race card against him. After the phone interview with Delaware radio station WHYY Monday night, a stray comment of his on the issue was also recorded before he hung up: “I don’t think I should take any s*** from anybody on that, do you?” (from cnn.com)

Obama played the race card on you...so when you make comments that show relatively little class and Obama voices his belief on why YOUR comments were inappropriate, he is playing the "race card". Again, wow. Could it be Mr. President, that even you, the champion of all things colored, could possibly offend? No, and definitely, you shouldn't take that "s***" from anybody on that...you Mr. Millionaire are far, far above that. Give it a rest.

- Joining wife Hillary Clinton at a campaign rally on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary, former President Bill Clinton argued that if Democratic candidates were awarded delegates the same way as Republicans, his wife would be beating Barack Obama in the race for the 2,025 delegates needed to secure the Democratic nomination.
“If we were under the Republican system, which is more like the Electoral College, she'd have a 300 delegate lead here,” Clinton told the Washington Post. “I mean, Senator McCain is already the nominee because they chose a system to produce that result, and we don't have a nominee here, because the Democrats chose a system that prevents that result.” (from cnn.com)

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Bill run for office under these same standards for deciding a candidate? Why has he not mentioned the need to change this system before? Not to mention the fact that I think the Electoral College system is a joke. When a majority of people, in the country, put their voice behind one candidate, should that not be the candidate? I understand the reason and the history behind the Electoral College system, but it's also a model that I have been puzzled by...why not take the individual who is desired by more Americans?

Come on Bill, you're better than this. Pull it together. Try to act, more "Presidential". Rise above the politics of division and animosity. This country needs a change, and it needs its leaders. It's time to be one.

Pray for Paraguay, for Bishop Lugo

Former Bishop Is Victor Over Party Long in Power
By Monte Reel
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, April 21, 2008; Page A12

BUENOS AIRES, April 20 -- A former Roman Catholic bishop ended the 61-year rule of Paraguay's dominant political party on Sunday, promising to replace the country's reputation for corruption with one of honesty.
With more than 90 percent of polling stations reporting, Fernando Lugo, who resigned the priesthood to launch his campaign, had a margin of about 10 percentage points over Blanca Ovelar, who was outgoing President Nicanor Duarte's choice to succeed him from the Colorado Party.

"Today we proved that the little guy also is capable of prevailing," Lugo, who captured 41 percent of the vote, said during a televised rally. There is no runoff, so the candidate with the most votes wins.

Lugo, 56, has long been known for his poverty relief efforts throughout Paraguay, where more than a third of the citizens live on less than $2 a day. He becomes the first president since 1947 elected outside the Colorado Party, which until Sunday's defeat had held the presidency longer than any party in the world.

During the campaign, Lugo cast himself as an independent who had dedicated his life to the country's underclass. In the 1970s, he became a proponent of liberation theology, a school of thought within the Catholic Church that encourages political activism on behalf of the poor.

His emphasis on leveling the country's income disparities has drawn comparisons to South American socialists such as Venezuela's Hugo Chávez and Bolivia's Evo Morales. Lugo has repeatedly discouraged such comparisons, preferring to call himself a centrist who neither endorses nor condemns those neighboring leaders.

"Lugo is seen as a political outsider, and he appealed to a group of people who generally haven't been involved in the political process -- the rural poor," said Álvaro Caballero, an analyst who directed polls for the Development Information and Resource Center in Asuncion, the capital. "There's a feeling that even though Paraguay is experiencing economic growth, that hasn't been reaching the people."

The landlocked South American country's economy grew 6.4 percent last year, but it is still saddled with a reputation for contraband and corruption. Lugo's political ascent rode a wave of dissatisfaction with those labels, and he launched his campaign after leading anti-corruption rallies against Duarte.
After initial results were announced Sunday night, Lugo said he would work to change the country's image to one of efficiency and honesty, and he pleaded with Paraguay's other politicians to ensure that "never again will the political class make policies based on clientism."

About two-thirds of the country's 2.8 million registered voters cast ballots Sunday, election officials said, the highest turnout in nearly 20 years. Interest was driven by a colorful cast of candidates that promised a historic result, no matter who won.
Ovelar, a former education minister, captured about 31 percent of the vote, officials said. She had hoped to become Paraguay's first female president and the third woman elected president in a South American country in the past three years, after Chile's Michelle Bachelet and Argentina's Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.

A third candidate, Lino Oviedo, is a former general who was convicted for leading a 1996 coup attempt. He launched his campaign in October immediately after being released from jail. He got about 22 percent on Sunday, officials said.

Both Ovelar and Oveido conceded defeat Sunday night. "I'm content and happy because change was produced, even if it was not through me," Oveido said after congratulating Lugo on his victory.

Ovelar had also tried to campaign under the banner of change, promising to represent a renovated Colorado Party -- the only ruling party most Paraguayans have ever known. Gen. Alfredo Stroessner, the dictator who ruled from 1954 to 1989, was the party's most emblematic figure.

"A lot of people had come to think that the Colorado Party headquarters is the place you go for state services. That gives an idea of how ingrained the party had become," said Joel Fyke of the nonprofit Washington Office on Latin America."

I promise, I am NOT trying to find these articles on Hillary...if similarly troubling articles on Obama were to cross my screen, they too would be questioned That being said...I'm really scared about the implications this article could have...

Hillary Clinton's Little-Noticed Israel Problem
Her position on Israel could mean a significant departure from longstanding U.S. policy. How come no one cares?

By Justin Elliott
April 3, 2008
MotherJones

Though Senator Barack Obama has never—neither in his Senate votes nor in his campaign literature—strayed from the conventional position of support for Israel, he has in this primary season been dogged by the issue. The flare-up last week surrounding Obama's allegedly "anti-Jewish" campaign cochairman, sparked by a piece in the conservative American Spectator magazine, was only the latest instance in which his foes have suggested that Obama has an "Israel problem." Yet even as Obama has been subjected to intense scrutiny, Senator Hillary Clinton has received virtually no attention for taking an unconventional position on Israel (albeit in a direction approved by pro-Israel hardliners). Her vow of support for Israel's claim on an "undivided Jerusalem," if enacted, would mark a major—and problematic—break with longstanding U.S. policy.

Under the heading "Standing with Israel against terrorism," Clinton's official policy paper, released last September and currently touted on her campaign website, states, "Hillary Clinton believes that Israel's right to exist in safety as a Jewish state, with defensible borders and an undivided Jerusalem as its capital, secure from violence and terrorism, must never be questioned." With the phrase "an undivided Jerusalem as its capital," Clinton seems to take a hardline position on a deeply contested facet of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and a position like this should have garnered at least passing interest from the mainstream media. So how come nobody's paying attention?

The answer may lie within the long history of empty rhetoric on Jerusalem doled out by presidential candidates. Perhaps the lack of interest can be chalked up to uncertainty in how to interpret Clinton’s position. Or it may be that right-wing pronouncements that give short shrift to the Palestinian side are simply not seen as remarkable. (An exception to the media silence on Clinton’s position was the American Prospect's Gershom Gorenberg, an Israeli.)

Clinton is toying with one of the few most important final-status issues that will have to be resolved as part of any two-state solution. Israel captured the eastern half of Jerusalem during the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. While Israel has declared the whole of an expanded Jerusalem its capital, the international community views east Jerusalem as occupied territory and the potential capital of any future Palestinian state. In recognition of the contested status of Jerusalem, the United States and other countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv.

"Jerusalem is not only of political, religious, and emotional significance to Palestinians. It's the cultural and economic capital of any future state of Palestine. To carve out east Jerusalem from the rest of Palestine would be to deprive of it the geographic area which traditionally has been the heart of the Palestinian economy," said Philip Wilcox, a retired U.S. Foreign Service officer who served as consul general and chief of mission in Jerusalem and is now president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, a D.C. nonprofit. "It's an absolute deal –breaker, and there will be no peace if there isn't an agreed political division of Jerusalem."

If opposing a compromise on Jerusalem is a deal breaker, one would think there would be more importance attached to Clinton's words—especially appearing in the unequivocal construction of Israel's "right to exist" that "must never be questioned." If Clinton did, as president, endorse Israel's annexation of all of Jerusalem, it could mean nothing less than a repudiation of the concept of a two-state solution. And while her position mirrors that of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), it actually puts her at odds with some prominent Israeli officials, notably Vice Premier Haim Ramon, who have publicly spoken about the need to cede the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem. One explanation for this incongruity, offered by all of the half-dozen experts I spoke to on the subject, is that Clinton’s statement is nothing more than election-year rhetoric. That is, her stand may tell us more about the fraught politics of Israel/Palestine in the United States than it does about how a Hillary Clinton administration would approach the conflict.

"I think it is said in the knowledge that this is a rhetorical commitment only. And that all past presidents once coming to office have recognized that the problem of Jerusalem is one that has to be resolved through negotiations," Wilcox said. That interpretation would be in keeping with an old tradition of presidential candidates making empty promises on Jerusalem. A favorite, going back to Ronald Reagan, is to pledge to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush made and then broke that promise and, in so doing, had to repeatedly waive the requirements of a 1995 law—of which John McCain was one of 76 Senate cosponsors—demanding the embassy be moved.

This campaign season, none of the remaining candidates seem to have made that pledge, at least publicly. Earlier this month, however, Haaretz reported that a Clinton surrogate told a Cleveland audience that Hillary Clinton would move the embassy to Jerusalem. John McCain, for his part, was quoted on his Mideast trip last week as saying that he supported Jerusalem "as the capital of Israel"—a weaker formulation than Clinton's. His campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

So is there an electoral gain, at least perceived by the candidates and their advisers, to making these types of promises? While it's impossible to know how many American Jews would vote on the basis of Jerusalem, the most recent American Jewish Committee poll found 58 percent opposed to compromise on the status of Jerusalem as a "united city" under Israel's jurisdiction, putting them in line with Clinton. But the number of American Jewish voters is not that high. M.J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum, a dovish advocacy group in Washington, believes that voters simply aren't part of Clinton's calculus. Her Jerusalem position," he said, is "designed to appeal to money people. The single-issue donors in the Jewish community tend to be far to the right. It's throwing red meat out to some people who desperately want to eat some red meat. It's not a serious commitment."

But to discern whether Clinton is serious about moving the embassy or supporting an "undivided Jerusalem" as Israel's capital, one has to look at the history of her position and undertake the not-so-simple task of interpreting it.

Clinton's rhetoric dates back to when her husband was attempting to broker a compromise on the holy city. She first took the position in 1999, prior to announcing her candidacy for the U.S. Senate in New York. (It was later in the same campaign that Clinton was slammed for hugging and kissing Suha Arafat, the wife of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, at a ceremony on the West Bank, where Suha, speaking in Arabic, accused the Israeli government of using poison gas against Palestinian women and children. Hours after the event, Clinton condemned her.) "I personally consider Jerusalem the eternal and indivisible capital of Israel," she wrote in a letter to the president of Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, echoing the exact language favored by some Israeli politicians. That stand was interpreted in the media as an obvious pander, a play for support among the hardline segment of New York's sizable Jewish community. "Israel's new friend Hillary Clinton, born-again Zionist" read the headline in her hometown paper, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. As Michael Tomasky later wrote in Hillary's Turn, his book about the 2000 campaign, "The Jerusalem question is always an issue in New York campaigns, and anyone running for dogcatcher in New York signs on to the position Hillary took."

Her position might have been New York politics as usual, but it had serious implications for her husband's administration. A spokesman for Bill Clinton's State Department immediately distanced the administration from her comments, saying that the "first lady was expressing her personal views" and that the U.S. position on Jerusalem—that it was a matter to be negotiated between the parties themselves—had "not changed."

And, yet, despite Hillary Clinton's strong words in '99 and today, there is still linguistic wiggle room that allows her to support the idea of a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem. "Well, [Clinton's statement] is strong, but if people are determined to be a little bit creative in the way they interpret these things, ‘undivided' sometimes literally means 'don't put the barbwire back up,'" said William Quandt, a professor of politics at the University of Virginia and a longtime observer of America's role in the Arab-Israeli conflict. "In 1967 there was a divided Jerusalem," he added, referring to the period before the 1967 war when Jerusalem was physically divided, a state of affairs to which no one wants to return. Clinton's campaign did not respond to a request for clarification of her position.

Then there's the ambiguity embedded in the very term "Jerusalem." James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, notes that it can be construed several ways. "Is it Jerusalem as defined by its municipal boundaries in 1967? Is it what Israel unilaterally and illegally annexed that was recognized by no one, including the United States government? Is it the expanded greater Jerusalem that now includes the settlement belt?"

But no matter how Clinton defines the borders of Jerusalem or whether the policy paper is intended as empty rhetoric, her position is emblematic of her record on Israel. As others have pointed out, her campaign position paper on Israel doesn't even mention a two-state solution. She virtually never utters the word "Palestinians." Her Senate website describes her as "a leader in supporting Israel's right to build the fence"—what others call the wall—that juts deeply into the West Bank and has been widely criticized for violating the human rights of Palestinians. She personally toured the barrier in late 2005. All this, and yet somehow Barack Obama is the only candidate whose position on Israel has drawn fire.

Hillary's "Instrumental" Role In Northern Ireland

Recently, Hillary Clinton has been flaunting her foreign policy experience in the bid for the Democratic nomination. Among recent claims of a life and death, sniper fire situation in Bosnia, Clinton claimed to have had an "instrumental role" in the Good Friday Agreement which brokered peace between the IRA, Sinn Fein and the British government in 1998.

Paul Bew had this to say about such ideas, "Calling her instrumental is silly....I can't think of anything to be said for the case that she had a major role." I wasn't necessarily ready to take his word as fatal until I came across Bew's credentials. "[Bew] is a prominent--perhaps the most prominent--historian of Northern Ireland. A professor at Queen's University Belfast, he last year published Ireland: The Politics of Enmity 1789-2006, a much-acclaimed work, which is part of the Oxford University Press's Modern Europe series. Bew was once an adviser to David Trimble (the former First Minister of the Northern Ireland) and he was appointed to the House of Lords in 2007, in recognition of his own contributions to the Good Friday Agreement.

Hm.

So wait, is it possible to be Pro Israel AND Pro Peace?

Meet the new political group 'J Street', formed to lobby in Washington and raise funds towards a more centered US Middle East policy. The group, started by American Jews and non-Jews, was designed to be a political advocate for a two-state system in the Palestinian and Israeli conflict. Most certainly the group is a response to the influential and controversial AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), who has wielded its power to help achieve Israeli security at the obvious detriment to Palestinians. For more on the J Street mission check out this article in MotherJones.

The Vatican Owns Up

We all remember six years ago when the startling and revolting news of sexual abuse by Catholic priests started to swell throughout the country. Perhaps even more disappointing was the lack of reaction from the Vatican, and the subsequent stories that offending priests had in fact, simply been moved to new parishes.

While the Church eventually apologized and started making reparations for victims, the direct interaction between those in the higher-up of the Catholic hierarchy and the victims of these crimes had been less than redeeming. I believe however, that the Catholic Church made huge strides recently in beginning to repair its image. On his first trip as Pope to the States, Benedict XVI has been clear in addressing the issue, "No words of mine could describe the pain and harm inflicted by such abuse. . . . Nor can I adequately describe the damage that has occurred within the community of the Church." Benedict has spoken similarly about the scandal in three separate speeches here in the U.S. Even more confirming of the Vatican's commitment to resolution and reconciliation is the invitation that was extended to victims to come and speak with the Pope himself on the issue.

"...the pope met with at least five abuse victims, all middle-aged men and women from Boston. Benedict requested the meeting, said Cardinal Sean O'Malley, the Boston archbishop, who was present during the gathering. 'It was very positive -- healing, I think -- and very prayerful,' O'Malley said, describing some of the victims as being in tears. 'It was a moving experience.'"

Each of the victims had a brief private conversation with the pope. Afterward, O'Malley gave Benedict a list of more than 1,000 people victimized over the years in the Boston archdiocese and asked the pope to pray for them. National Public Radio's "All Things Considered" quoted Bernie McDaid, a victim who attended the meeting, as having told Benedict: "Holy Father, I want you to know you have a cancer in your flock and you need to correct that, and I hope you do. You need to do more."
Gary M. Bergeron, 45, a sex abuse victim from Boston who was not included in the meeting, welcomed it. "This is the first time in seven years that the leader of the Catholic Church has come out saying the behavior of the past is not acceptable anymore," he said.
Since 1950, more than 5,000 U.S. priests have been accused of abusing about 12,000 children, according to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The church has spent about $2 billion on legal claims.

One other strong encouragement coming from Benedict was his interaction with leaders from several other religions. At the Pope John Paul II Cultural Center, Benedict addressed 200 leaders of five other faiths, saying: "In our attempt to discover points of commonality, perhaps we have shied away from the responsibility to discuss our differences with calmness and clarity. While always uniting our hearts and minds in the call for peace, we must also listen attentively to the voice of truth."
The pope also offered Passover greetings to members of the Jewish community "in a spirit of openness to the real possibilities of cooperation which we see before us as we contemplate the urgent needs of our world and as we look with compassion upon the sufferings of millions of our brothers and sisters everywhere. Naturally, our shared hope for peace in the world embraces the Middle East and the Holy Land in particular."

Standard Operating Procedure
An important, and scary, film

Is it possible for a photograph to change the world? Photographs taken by soldiers in Abu Ghraib prison changed the war in Iraq and changed Americas image of itself. Yet, a central mystery remains. Did the notorious Abu Ghraib photographs constitute evidence of systematic abuse by the American military, or were they documenting the aberrant behavior of a few bad apples? We set out to examine the context of these photographs. Why were they taken? What was happening outside the frame? We talked directly to the soldiers who took the photographs and who were in the photographs. Who are these people? What were they thinking? Over two years of investigation, we amassed a million and a half words of interview transcript, thousands of pages of unredacted reports, and hundreds of photographs. The story of Abu Ghraib is still shrouded in moral ambiguity, but it is clear what happened there. The Abu Ghraib photographs serve as both an expose and a coverup. An expose, because the photographs offer us a glimpse of the horror of Abu Ghraib; and a coverup because they convinced journalists and readers they had seen everything, that there was no need to look further. In recent news reports, we have learned about the destruction of the Abu Zubaydah interrogation tapes. A coverup. It has been front page news. But the coverup at Abu Ghraib involved thousands of prisoners and hundreds of soldiers. We are still learning about the extent of it. Many journalists have asked about the smoking gun of Abu Ghraib. It is the wrong question. As Philip Gourevitch has commented, Abu Ghraib is the smoking gun. The underlying question that we still have not resolved, four years after the scandal: how could American values become so compromised that Abu Ghraiband the subsequent coverup could happen?

Opens in L.A. May 2
(To check out the website click here)

Thoughts on Israeli Control Over Palestine

UN expert stands by Nazi comments

By Tim Franks
BBC Middle East correspondent


Falk believes that Israel has been avoiding criticism
The next UN investigator into Israel conduct in the occupied territories has stood by comments comparing Israeli actions in Gaza to those of the Nazis.
Speaking to the BBC, Professor Richard Falk said he believed that up to now Israel had been successful in avoiding the criticism that it was due.
Professor Falk is scheduled to take up his post for the UN Human Rights Council later in the year.
But Israel wants his mandate changed to probe Palestinian actions as well.
Professor Falk said he drew the comparison between the treatment of Palestinians with the Nazi record of collective atrocity, because of what he described as the massive Israeli punishment directed at the entire population of Gaza.
He said he understood that it was a provocative thing to say, but at the time, last summer, he had wanted to shake the American public from its torpor.

Israeli actions in Gaza are collective punishment, says Falk
"If this kind of situation had existed for instance in the manner in which China was dealing with Tibet or the Sudanese government was dealing with Darfur, I think there would be no reluctance to make that comparison," he said.
That reluctance was, he argued, based on the particular historical sensitivity of the Jewish people, and Israel's ability to avoid having their policies held up to international law and morality.
These and other comments from Professor Falk comments are, if anything, even harsher than the current UN investigator, John Dugard, who himself has been withering about Israel's actions.
A spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry said that Israel wanted the UN investigator's mandate changed, so that he could look into human rights violations by the Palestinians as well as Israel.
If that were not to happen, the Israeli government may consider barring entry to the new UN investigator.

Ugh, Another Hillary Mishap

Clinton drops hospital story from stump speech
Posted: 02:11 PM ET

Clinton campaigned in Montana Saturday.

(CNN) — Hillary Clinton’s campaign says the candidate will stop telling the story of an uninsured pregnant woman who lost the baby and died after being denied medical care, following a hospital raising questions over its accuracy.

Clinton has frequently told the emotional story of the woman from rural Ohio since late February. In the speech, Clinton said the woman made minimum wage working at a local pizza restaurant, without insurance, when she became pregnant. Clinton said the woman ran into trouble and went to a hospital in a nearby county but was denied treatment because she couldn’t afford a $100 payment.

In the speech, Clinton said the woman later was taken to the hospital by ambulance and lost the baby. The young woman was then taken by helicopter to a Columbus hospital where she died of complications.

As recently as Friday night in Grand Forks, North Dakota, Clinton said, “As I was listening to this story being told, I was just aching inside. It is so wrong, in this good, great and rich country, that a young woman and her baby would die because she didn’t have health insurance or a hundred dollars to get examined.”

But an Athens, Ohio hospital is questioning the accuracy of the story. While Clinton never named the hospital in her speech, the woman she was referring to was treated at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens. The hospital said the woman did indeed have insurance, and at least at their hospital was never turned away.

Hospital chief executive officer Rick Castrop in a statement said, “we reviewed the medical and patient accounts of the patient” after she was named in a newspaper story about Clinton’s stump speech. “There is no indication that she was ever denied medical care at any time, for any reason. We clearly reject any perception that we ever denied any care to this woman.”