UN launches a probe into human rights violations in US

[dmytryp]

Surprise! After being done with Israel (for umpteens time) the UNHRC (that is headed by such paragons of human rights like Saudi Arabia, Russia, China etc) has launched a "fact finding mission" into human rights abuses by US due to lack of affordable public housing in urban areas. And with accordance to the best traditions of the council, the special rapporteur apparently made up her mind well before she heard even one testimony.
http://newsrealblog.com/2009/10/24/united-nations-launches-investigation-of-human-rights-abuses-in-the-united-states/

Ain't UN grand?

[smcc360]

So they're going to straighten us out the way they fixed Somalia, Darfur, Serbia, North Korea, et al? Fantastic. With a track record like that, success can't be far off.

[Millicent M'Lady]

Is the article right in saying that the UN were invited in? Was it a PR stunt that's biting the inviter in the ass now?

[dmytryp]

What do you mean? You mean to join the UNHRC? That was Obama's admin decision to join after years of Bush admin refusing to give the body political legitimacy by joining. US replaced Canada. UNHRC is broken down by areas and has an automatic majority from OIC and an unaffiliated block (similar to GA).

EDIT: Sorry, I missed that part at the end. I don't know the answer.

[MattW]

How far in arrears is the US for UN dues? Maybe the UN should realize that can go on forever...

I love how the US is violating human rights because of housing. Because there's nothing else more critical going on in the world, no one is starving, or being enslaved by their government, or being ritually or legally disfigured or beheaded.

Go UN!

[icerose]

This is fantastic, it means the UN is going to purchase a home for every person who doesn't have one. Right?

It's a publicity stunt nothing more. If she looked at her own country she'd find the exact same things.

[robeiae]

She's from Brazil. There are no housing problems in Brazil.

[semilargeintestine]

This needs to happen to the US about 150 more times before they catch up to Israel. It's a good start though.

[sulong]

We got nothing to hide right?
So whats the problem?

[Cranky]

We got nothing to hide right?
So whats the problem?


The problem is that it's busywork, and political to boot. When there are actual, REAL human rights abuses going on in the world, they're going to probe the lack of affordable housing in US urban areas? That's a human rights problem more important than the crap going on in Iran, Darfur, Sudan, etc.?

When they can bring some of that righteous indignation to bear on the things that *really* matter, and can seriously improve the lives of the people they're supposedly trying to help, then I'll be impressed.

[icerose]

She's from Brazil. There are no housing problems in Brazil.

I seriously hope you're kidding when you say that.

http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu23me/uu23me0p.htm

12% of all households in their urban areas living in what they call "favelos" isn't a problem...right.

And their president just spent 15 billion to build homes for poor workers. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=am_7eNtyAfhs&refer=latin_america

I can pull more links if wanted, though I have to hand it to them, at least they used stimulous type money to help people instead of bolstering up overbloated and greedy corporations and banks.

[Don]

The UN wants to make the US look bad.

Shocking, absolutely shocking, I tell you.

Srsly. Who's surprised? Really? Anyone? Bueller?

My only question is WTF are they still doing based in the US? I've long been amazed that they've never been McVeighed.

[Zoombie]

Um...

Yeah, this seems kinda dumb.

[Bartholomew]

If the UN completely alienates the US, they'll also likely lose our European allies.

An institution like the UN becomes weaker with every country that does not belong to it, especially when those countries are first world.

[robeiae]

I seriously hope you're kidding when you say that.
Yes, I was kidding big time.

Favelos are often run by drug dealers...really, not much different than many housing projects in some US cities.

But as your links indicate, the numbers are even bigger in such places.

This whole thing is a joke, imo. Like the UN.

[Zoombie]

And this really bums me out cause I really love the idea of the U.N: A collection of nations all trying to prevent another global war, and generally keeping each-other on the straight and narrow.

Too bad they're a bunch of dumbs.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Surprise! After being done with Israel (for umpteens time) the UNHRC (that is headed by such paragons of human rights like Saudi Arabia, Russia, China etc) has launched a "fact finding mission" into human rights abuses by US due to lack of affordable public housing in urban areas. And with accordance to the best traditions of the council, the special rapporteur apparently made up her mind well before she heard even one testimony.
http://newsrealblog.com/2009/10/24/united-nations-launches-investigation-of-human-rights-abuses-in-the-united-states/

Ain't UN grand?

Is that report in the Onion?

[icerose]

Yes, I was kidding big time.

Favelos are often run by drug dealers...really, not much different than many housing projects in some US cities.

But as your links indicate, the numbers are even bigger in such places.

This whole thing is a joke, imo. Like the UN.

Okay I thought you were being sarcastic but my sarcasto-meter hasn't been that accurate lately.

[dmytryp]

Too bad they're a bunch of dumbs.
The reflect the world today

Is that report in the Onion?
Unfortunately, no

[Zoombie]

No, they reflect the people who *think* they're the leaders of the world today. One day, they're going to look out the window and notice all the smart people have actually been doing things with their lives and the world will be a different place.

[clintl]

After noticing the source, David Horowitz's website, which is about as far from being objective as it's possible to get, I did a little search around the Internet. And I've become skeptical about the whole story. Especially when this thread appears at the very top of some of the searches I've done. As far as I can tell, every single source traces back to an article on the Democracy Now website (which the Horowitz site cites in the linked article). Not a single other thing I have found originates from another source.

This is very likely much ado about nothing.

I'll keep an open mind if there are other, more reliable sources emerging, but right now, I don't think there's much to this story.

[MattW]

Yes, I was kidding big time.

Favelos are often run by drug dealers...really, not much different than many housing projects in some US cities.

The favelas are even worse than poor communities in the US, and there are so many of them that the government has been coerced into serving the needs of the poor masses at the expense of all else.

They are truly shanty towns, built of scrap materials or whatever can be found or stolen. Many are built on land that essentially has been granted squatters rights because the government cannot or will not step up to protect rightful ownership - you'll see at least one "dwelling" built under most overpasses. Sanitation is minimal, except where water and other utilities are "provided" by the government.

And you are right about the drug dealers - they rule everything in the larger favelas, and prey off of the people who have no way out.

We support a family there, providing food and clothes all year, and giving enough so the kids have a chance to go to school instead of stealing or scraping for pennies. And it is money I barely notice every month.

Standards in the US are high enough that those same dollars would feed a needy family for a week every month, but I can instead feed and change the life of another family forever. But yeah, we deserve the UN attention.

[robeiae]

After noticing the source, David Horowitz's website, which is about as far from being objective as it's possible to get, I did a little search around the Internet. And I've become skeptical about the whole story. Especially when this thread appears at the very top of some of the searches I've done. As far as I can tell, every single source traces back to an article on the Democracy Now website (which the Horowitz site cites in the linked article). Not a single other thing I have found originates from another source.

This is very likely much ado about nothing.

I'll keep an open mind if there are other, more reliable sources emerging, but right now, I don't think there's much to this story.
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/housing/visits.htm

Look under "Forthcoming visits."

ETA: Here's the press release: http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/7C56EEE3D89D6F0EC12576550050CFCA?opendocument

[clintl]

Thanks.

She also visited Canada a couple of years ago.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G08/110/92/PDF/G0811092.pdf?OpenElement

[dmytryp]

So, what exactly are you sceptical about? That this is happening? What does the "lack of objectivity" here mean?

[clintl]

It means David Horowitz is well-known in the US as a right-wing racist demogogue, and I would not consider anything posted on his web site as objective.

And yes, I am skeptical that this is a setup by the UN to embarrass the US, when she visited Canada for exactly the same reasons in 2007. And I linked to her report.

[robeiae]

It means David Horowitz is well-known in the US as a right-wing racist demogogue, and I would not consider anything posted on his web site as objective.
Horowitz is well known as a racist? Really? I didn't know that.

Or are we just including "racist" as an automatic descriptor for any right-wing blowhard? Can't have one without the other?

Does it work the same for left-wing blowhards, too?

[ColoradoGuy]

Horowitz is well known as a racist? Really? I didn't know that.
In the spirit of the thread, I get to post this (http://mediamatters.org/research/200412020001) about him from Media Matters. Next come my Daily Kos links, followed by Sadly, No.

[robeiae]

In the spirit of the thread, I get to post this (http://mediamatters.org/research/200412020001) about him from Media Matters.
Yeah, I saw that.

But look, this UN person is coming to the US for some sort of fact-finding mission. And if you read the report about Canada, there is--in fact--a laundry list of things that Canada needs to do, in order to rise to the standards for maintaining the "right" of affordable housing in the opinion the UN inspector (was a different person than the one coming here).

I find that to be laughable. And really, really sad. The UN is blowing money on shit like this? To what end?

[ColoradoGuy]

I find that to be laughable. And really, really sad. The UN is blowing money on shit like this? To what end?
One World Governmentalist that I am, I support the existence of the UN and our continued participation in it. But much of what it does has always been about political theater, which this is.

[dmytryp]

And yes, I am skeptical that this is a setup by the UN to embarrass the US, when she visited Canada for exactly the same reasons in 2007. And I linked to her report.
Oh, I see. You think that UNHRC's efforts are best spent by badgering the few democratic nations sitting on it (that would include Canada)? UNHRC is being repeatedly used by great human rights abusers to divert attention from actual human rights abuses to attack democratic nations. I am actually rather unclear as to why any US admin would agree to this. If the admin thinks this might be a problem, a nation such as US, with its independent judiciary should have no trouble of dealing with the issue without needing political theatere from UNHRC.

[clintl]

Yeah, I saw that.

But look, this UN person is coming to the US for some sort of fact-finding mission. And if you read the report about Canada, there is--in fact--a laundry list of things that Canada needs to do, in order to rise to the standards for maintaining the "right" of affordable housing in the opinion the UN inspector (was a different person than the one coming here).

I find that to be laughable. And really, really sad. The UN is blowing money on shit like this? To what end?

Well, yes. And she also praised a lot of what Canada has done.

[clintl]

Oh, I see. You think that UNHRC's efforts are best spent by badgering the few democratic nations sitting on it (that would include Canada)? UNHRC is being repeatedly used by great human rights abusers to divert attention from actual human rights abuses to attack democratic nations. I am actually rather unclear as to why any US admin would agree to this. If the admin thinks this might be a problem, a nation such as US, with its independent judiciary should have no trouble of dealing with the issue without needing political theatere from UNHRC.

I'm not arguing that it's the best use of UNHRC resources. I'm saying that what is probably going to happen is she will spend her two weeks here touring the country, write her report, and everyone will just ignore it when she's done. I'm criticizing the alarmism over it.

[dmytryp]

I'm not arguing that it's the best use of UNHRC resources. I'm saying that what is probably going to happen is she will spend her two weeks here touring the country, write her report, and everyone will just ignore it when she's done. I'm criticizing the alarmism over it.
There is no alarmism, as it is par for the course for UNHRC. It's just another show of just how corrupt and useless body it is.

[clintl]

I don't see corruption here. I see an unwise use of resources by a subunit of the UN bureaucracy that appears to have minimal importance.

[dmytryp]

You don't see corruption in worst offenders in human rights using UN to gain political weaponry against those places that stand far far above them in this respect? Really?

[clintl]

The more I read through the relevant UN website, the more I'm becoming convinced that it's mostly a fact finding mission, and the notion that she is here to investigate "human rights violations" blatantly misrepresents what this particular branch of the UNHRC is doing.

[robeiae]

Well, yes. And she also praised a lot of what Canada has done.
He. It was a different person.

And if you read the report from Mexico, it's also full of praise for what the government there has done...

See a pattern?

[Don]

Didn't the John Birch Society get a lot of flack in the past for claiming the UN was an affront to US sovereignity?

[AMCrenshaw]

Good job UN. I mean it. How many resources will this really occupy? Ha!

Fact find all you want. I support you. We have REAL problems, and the affordability of housing (a basic human need, btw) is one. Suck it up, alarmists. If this is dumb it's because you're deliberately deaf.

[robeiae]

Good job UN. I mean it. How many resources will this really occupy? Ha!

Fact find all you want. I support you. We have REAL problems, and the affordability of housing (a basic human need, btw) is one. Suck it up, alarmists. If this is dumb it's because you're deliberately deaf.
It's dumb because comparatively speaking, we DON'T have real problems. So, it's a waste of resources. For ever social ill that the UN has resolved itself to fix, what's its track record? If it's actually gonna accomplish anything, it seems to me that it should use its limited resources wisely, as opposed to putting on a show.

[AMCrenshaw]

What kind of wastage are we talking about exactly?

[robeiae]

What kind of wastage are we talking about exactly?
Don't know. Why? Is some obvious waste an okay thing? If you want to--for example--help starving people, is it okay to blow some of the money you've been given on a trip to Tahiti to get some Sun? Is it just a question of percentages, here?

Imo, this trip--like the trip to Canada--is pointless. And it costs money and time.

[AMCrenshaw]

Don't know. Why? Is some obvious waste an okay thing?

I had a feeling you'd say that. We figure out "waste" by cost and benefit. How many resources will this cost the UN? (Exactly how much time? Exactly how much money?) The benefit is information and perhaps the exhortation toward reform. I think it's an important issue, you don't; our opinions, however, are not what makes this a waste or not.

[robeiae]

I had a feeling you'd say that. We figure out "waste" by cost and benefit. How many resources will this cost the UN? (Exactly how much time? Exactly how much money?) The benefit is information and perhaps the exhortation toward reform. I think it's an important issue, you don't; our opinions, however, are not what makes this a waste.
Well, are there any cost-benefit analyses from previous activities and trips? Do you know that there have been any benefits derived from these trips and reports, any at all (apart from some peeps getting some good travel time)? Has Canada seen a marked improvement, since the UN flew in to set it straight?

[AMCrenshaw]

Well, are there any cost-benefit analyses from previous activities and trips? Do you know that there have been any benefits derived from these trips and reports, any at all (apart from some peeps getting some good travel time)? Has Canada seen a marked improvement, since the UN flew in to set it straight?

Actually I haven't read any UN cost-benefit analyses at all - and this is the first UN human rights trip I've been remotely interested in. I live in a city with an alarming amount of homelessness, house-vacancy, and unemployment. I have the feeling the city I live in is not unique. The unaffordability of housing might not be a problem compared to the problems of Yemen or Honduras, but it's still a problem. It's up to us to make use of information, and, if an outside source is willing to gather it, I call it a gift, not a curse.

All besides, I'd need to know the costs of this trip relative to the potential or projected benefits of this trip ...I am privy to neither bit of info, though.


AMC

[clintl]

He. It was a different person.

And if you read the report from Mexico, it's also full of praise for what the government there has done...

See a pattern?

Yes, I see a pattern. I see a pattern of this agency doing exactly what it says it is doing on its website, gathering information and making recommendations relative to its viewpoint that affordable housing is a human right. Considering that few, if any, nations actually have housing policies in place consistent with that ideal, these are the kind of reports I would expect to see - a mix of positives and recommendations.

What I don't see is a witch hunt targeting the US, which is what the OP alleged.

[clintl]

It's dumb because comparatively speaking, we DON'T have real problems. So, it's a waste of resources. For ever social ill that the UN has resolved itself to fix, what's its track record? If it's actually gonna accomplish anything, it seems to me that it should use its limited resources wisely, as opposed to putting on a show.

Read the site. They are also looking for policies that work well - best practices. Is that a waste of resources, too?

[robeiae]

I'm fairly certain our government is already--and has been for quite some time--devoting resources to the issue (not that I think they've got much of a track record). And I'm fairly certain our government has more resources to devote here than the UN. And I'm also fairly certain that our government is not gonna pay much attention to the report that the UN issues, aside from a public "thank you."

[robeiae]

Read the site. They are also looking for policies that work well - best practices. Is that a waste of resources, too?
Yes, I think it is. This can't be done by people already "on the ground"?

I've read the site. And the reports. And my opinion is that is all a bunch of superfluous, self-congratulatory crap.

And, yes. I'd probably say that about almost anything coming from the UN.

[ColoradoGuy]

Read the site. They are also looking for policies that work well - best practices. Is that a waste of resources, too?
Of course it is. We're talking about the UN here. Everything they do, by definition, is silly at best and sinister at worst. You're just not wearing the Right pair of glasses.

[robeiae]

*loans CG some glasses*

[AMCrenshaw]

me too?

[Bird of Prey]

As long as they are painted rose-colored by the militant, you're in. . . .

[robeiae]

me too?
No. You'll have to share with CG. They become communal glasses, once he gets hold of them...

[ColoradoGuy]

No. You'll have to share with CG. They become communal glasses, once he gets hold of them...
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need . . .

Which reminds me, there's a wonderful new biography of Engels (http://www.amazon.com/Marxs-General-Revolutionary-Friedrich-Engels/dp/0805080252) out. Got a starred review from Publisher's Weekly and the TLS loved it.

[GeorgeK]

I find that to be laughable. And really, really sad. The UN is blowing money on shit like this? To what end?

"And next on the agenda is the fact finding mission in Weeatpaperpushers."

"Actually with the change in regime there, they aren't official members yet so what is next on the list?"

"That would be Civilwaristan."

"Ah, no, I think our austere body would be better served auditing Aruba."

"Psst. It's hurricane season in Aruba."

"Yes, as my colleague has pointied out, It is time that we do a junket to America."

[nighttimer]

A better (and far less hysterical) source for the story about the United Nation appointing an official to look into affordable housing in New York City can be found HERE (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/special-rapportuer/).

From the Times article:

Everybody knows New York City is an expensive place to live. But the United Nations wants to know if affordable housing is so tough to come by that it actually violates human rights.

The United Nations has assigned an official, “a special rapporteur on the right to adequate housing,” (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/housing/overview.htm)to check the city’s affordable housing. The rapporteur, Raquel Rolnik, is to tour the city for the next three days with housing advocates and city officials to “hear the voices of those who are suffering on the ground,” she said.
The United Nations Human Rights Council appoints a rapporteur, or independent experts, to investigate human rights conditions around the world. In the case of Ms. Rolnik, (http://raquelrolnik.wordpress.com/) a professor of urban planning at the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil, her “mission” (http://restorehousingrights.org/) is to tour New York City and six other places in the United States and to report back to the United Nations General Assembly about housing rights violations and advances.

After that, “We send off letters to governments to ask, ‘Is this true? What’s going on?’ and to please intervene,” she said.

Wow. A letter to governments asking them to look into possible issues regarding housing? What a presumptuous infringement upon the sovereignty of the United States!

Only it's not.

The UN wants to make the US look bad.

Shocking, absolutely shocking, I tell you.

My only question is WTF are they still doing based in the US? I've long been amazed that they've never been McVeighed.

I hope you're only being sarcastic Don and you really are not advocating some right-wing extremist blow up the United Nations building as Timothy McVeigh did to the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.

Because if you aren't kidding one might mistaking believe you are advocating an act of terrorism.

It's dumb because comparatively speaking, we DON'T have real problems. So, it's a waste of resources.

That is a spectacularly dumb statement, robeiae.

The United States DOES have "real problems". It has a problem with the health care of its citizens. You may have heard this mentioned once or twice as its been in the news a bit lately.

It has a problem with infant mortality rates. It has a problem that more than 1 in 100 adults is locked up (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/28cnd-prison.html) as the U.S. incarcerates more of its own people than any other nation.

America spends more on its health care than any other country, but only ranks 50th out of 224 nations in life expectancy (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/11/life.expectancy.health.care/index.html).

More kids die from child abuse and neglect in America than any other country. Child abuse (http://www.wmur.com/family/21357119/detail.html) is a problem and 5 US children die from it every day.

Drug addiction, education, homelessness, poverty, crime, racial and gender discrimination are just a few of the problems America continues to wrestle with and whether or not you believe it or not, robeiae, access to affordable housing IS a problem.

Simply because it's not a problem for you doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

[robeiae]

The United States DOES have "real problems". It has a problem with the health care of its citizens. You may have heard this mentioned once or twice as its been in the news a bit lately.I meant only with regard to the subect of the trip: housing. Comparitievly speaking, the US problems in this regard are not comparable to those faced by peoples in many, many other nations. Like Brazil, the country of the official that is being sent here.

So, your listing of other problems is not relevant to my comment. That said, I'll address a couple of them:
It has a problem with infant mortality rates.No, it really doesn't.

America spends more on its health care than any other country, but only ranks 50th out of 224 nations in life expectancy (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/11/life.expectancy.health.care/index.html).
Well now, that means that comparatively speaking, we're in the top quarter, doesn't it?
Drug addiction, education, homelessness, poverty, crime, racial and gender discrimination are just a few of the problems America continues to wrestle with and whether or not you believe it or not, robeiae, access to affordable housing IS a problem.And the UN--that is looking at this issue globally--should focus here why, exactly? Again, are we worse off than other nations?

Simply because it's not a problem for you doesn't mean it isn't a problem.It's always swell to mount that horse, isn't it?

[ColoradoGuy]

No, it really doesn't.

Actually we do have a problem with infant mortality. It's largely related to premature birth, which is, in turn, related to getting prenatal care to women, especially those without insurance.

(As an aside, NPR did a pair of excellent recent programs on why medical care costs too much. It's high on commonsense analysis and low on finger-pointing. It's here (http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/player/CPRadio_player.php?podcast=http://www.thisamericanlife.org/xmlfeeds/391.xml&proxyloc=http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/player/customproxy.php), and the follow-up program is here (http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/player/CPRadio_player.php?podcast=http://www.thisamericanlife.org/xmlfeeds/392.xml&proxyloc=http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/player/customproxy.php).)

[clintl]

I meant only with regard to the subect of the trip: housing. Comparitievly speaking, the US problems in this regard are not comparable to those faced by peoples in many, many other nations. Like Brazil, the country of the official that is being sent here.



They have already visited Brazil.

[nighttimer]

It has a problem with infant mortality rates. .

I meant only with regard to the subect of the trip: housing. Comparitievly speaking, the US problems in this regard are not comparable to those faced by peoples in many, many other nations. Like Brazil, the country of the official that is being sent here.

So, your listing of other problems is not relevant to my comment.

No, it IS relevant when you say "...comparitively speaking, we DON'T have real problems. Issues of homelessness, crime, drug addiction, infant mortality, life expectancy are but a few issues where the U.S. fairs better in some catergories and worst in others in comparison to Brazil and the rest of the world.

That said, I'll address a couple of them:

It has a problem with infant mortality rates.

No, it really doesn't.

Infant mortality (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/infant_mortality/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) has been declining slightly in the United States. But 28,000 children under the age of 1 still die every year.

The main reason for the high rate is preterm delivery, and there was a 10 percent increase in such births from 2000 to 2006, according to recent figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db09.pdf). (In 2007, according to preliminary data just published by the C.D.C. , that rate declined by 1 percent, mainly among late preterm infants.)

In 2004, the latest year for which worldwide data are available, the United States had a higher rate than 28 countries, including Singapore, Japan, Cuba and Hungary. In 1960, the United States had a higher rate than only 11 countries.

lin (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/health/07stat.html)k

You don't get tired of being wrong, do you?

America spends more on its health care than any other country, but only ranks 50th out of 224 nations in life expectancy (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/11/life.expectancy.health.care/index.html).

Well now, that means that comparatively speaking, we're in the top quarter, doesn't it?

Sure. That's one way of looking at it. Another is, spending more than any other country for health care and only coming within the top quarter is a piss-poor return on all those dollars.

And the UN--that is looking at this issue globally--should focus here why, exactly? Again, are we worse off than other nations?

In some facets, yes. Without a doubt.

The United States is a member of the United Nations. and as such, is not above or exempt from examination on how things are in A-merry-ca.

This is not an endorsement of the United Nations. They are frequently corrupt, overtly political, biased against the U.S., bungling, ineffectual and impotent. But they aren't always wrong. The U.S. isn't always right.

Simply because it's not a problem for you doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

It's always swell to mount that horse, isn't it?

Doesn't change the cold hard truth, now does it?

And I don't ride. I prefer to drive.

[dmytryp]

Infant mortality (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/infant_mortality/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) has been declining slightly in the United States. But 28,000 children under the age of 1 still die every year.

The main reason for the high rate is preterm delivery, and there was a 10 percent increase in such births from 2000 to 2006, according to recent figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db09.pdf). (In 2007, according to preliminary data just published by the C.D.C. , that rate declined by 1 percent, mainly among late preterm infants.)

In 2004, the latest year for which worldwide data are available, the United States had a higher rate than 28 countries, including Singapore, Japan, Cuba and Hungary. In 1960, the United States had a higher rate than only 11 countries.

lin (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/health/07stat.html)k

You might want to look into how that rate is being calculated in different countries. But again, as Rob pointed out, from UN perspective, US doesn't have any problem with infant mortality.







Sure. That's one way of looking at it. Another is, spending more than any other country for health care and only coming within the top quarter is a piss-poor return on all those dollars.
And this would be an issue for local politicians to deal with, no? What does UNHRC has to do with it?



In some facets, yes. Without a doubt.

The United States is a member of the United Nations. and as such, is not above or exempt from examination on how things are in A-merry-ca.
You are missing the point entirely. The rule og thumb in any place -- deal with the worst problems first. Are you going to claim that as far as UN concerned US is one of the worst? People here (not just you) miss the central point. US and Canada are democratic states that have internal mechanisms to deal with these problems. UNHRC's time and money would be far better spent on countries that lack those mechanisms. But again, I doubt any such mission is going to visit Saudi Arabia, Russia, China etc. (by the way, since when affordability of housing in certain areas is a right?)

[nighttimer]

You might want to look into how that rate is being calculated in different countries. But again, as Rob pointed out, from UN perspective, US doesn't have any problem with infant mortality.

The parents of the 28,000 American children who die every year would probably disagree with you both.

And this would be an issue for local politicians to deal with, no? What does UNHRC has to do with it?

Healthcare is too vast an issue for "local politicians" to deal with, yes. But then you live in a country that provides universal healthcare coverage, so it is possible you may not fully understand our problem.

You are missing the point entirely. The rule og thumb in any place -- deal with the worst problems first. Are you going to claim that as far as UN concerned US is one of the worst? People here (not just you) miss the central point. US and Canada are democratic states that have internal mechanisms to deal with these problems. UNHRC's time and money would be far better spent on countries that lack those mechanisms. But again, I doubt any such mission is going to visit Saudi Arabia, Russia, China etc. (by the way, since when affordability of housing in certain areas is a right?)

I'm pretty sure I never said affordable housing in certain areas is a right. If it is, I'd like to live in the affordable housing area of Beverly Hills.

As far as the United States is concerned, in some particular circumstances it is worse than anywhere else. Democracies have problems because they are democracies. In totalitarian regimes and monarchies they don't concern themselves with niceties such as what the people want. If President Obama were a dictator instead of an elected politician he'd just tell the citizens, "this is what you want, but this is what you get." It doesn't work like that. Democracies allow citizens to participate in and have a say in how they are governed and that's when stuff gets complicated.

I'm not missing the point at all. I just don't agree with yours. It's not the same thing.

[dmytryp]

Dude, aren't you tired of fighting all the straw-men you create?
The parents of the 28,000 American children who die every year would probably disagree with you both.
WTF? Are you serious? There is no country on the planet that had eliminated infant mortality and US is one of the countries at the very top in this respect. Certainly, it shouldn't be a priority for the UN as compared to countries where infant mortality is close to two orders of magnitude bigger. Your stubborn insistence to paint people who try to look at the whole picture as some kind of monsters is far more telling about you than it is about me or Rob



Healthcare is too vast an issue for "local politicians" to deal with, yes. But then you live in a country that provides universal healthcare coverage, so it is possible you may not fully understand our problem.
And any of this has what to do with what? US local politicians should be more than able to solve your healthcare problem without UN intervention. To actually think that anything that UN can do or advise can help here is beyond stupid.



I'm pretty sure I never said affordable housing in certain areas is a right. If it is, I'd like to live in the affordable housing area of Beverly Hills.
That's nice, since this is the fact finding mission we are talking about, not some kind of imaginary one you tried to create here. The mission is to look into possible human rights abuses due to lack of affordable housing in large metropolitan areas.

As far as the United States is concerned, in some particular circumstances it is worse than anywhere else. Democracies have problems because they are democracies. In totalitarian regimes and monarchies they don't concern themselves with niceties such as what the people want. If President Obama were a dictator instead of an elected politician he'd just tell the citizens, "this is what you want, but this is what you get." It doesn't work like that. Democracies allow citizens to participate in and have a say in how they are governed and that's when stuff gets complicated.

I'm not missing the point at all. I just don't agree with yours. It's not the same thing.

Are you for real? A democracy has mechanisms such as independant judiciary, multiple human rights groups and free press to adress possible human rights abuses. Non-democratic states do not. So, by this measure, any external commission would be better spending its resourses to help to countries that lack such mechanisms. What part of this you disagree with?

By the way, you are free to provide any example of dictatorship that tops US in terms of human rights.

[dmytryp]

The more I read through the relevant UN website, the more I'm becoming convinced that it's mostly a fact finding mission, and the notion that she is here to investigate "human rights violations" blatantly misrepresents what this particular branch of the UNHRC is doing.
Let's look at Rob's link again, shall we?
http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/7C56EEE3D89D6F0EC12576550050CFCA?opendocument
"I will collect first-hand information on the status of realization of the right to adequate housing in the US, with particular emphasis on social housing, the foreclosure crisis and homelessness," said Ms Rolnik. "The United States has been implementing a variety of programs and policies towards providing adequate housing for everyone. I want to look at their functioning and impact from a human rights perspective."

....snip

Raquel Rolnik (Brazil) was appointed as Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context by the United Nations Human Rights Council, in May 2008

Bolding mine

From the video in the OP
If we take housing as a human right, you have to go back to the idea that housing is a social issue before and more priority than housing as a commodity, as a financial asset.
And other quotes from her (that I am a bit too lazy to start verifying)

• [I am going to] hear the voices of those who are suffering on the ground.
•I am representing the right of adequate housing as a human right.
•Affordable housing here [in the United States] is not that affordable
•I see this mission as an opportunity to open a dialogue, to open a movement, towards the achievement and implementation of the right to adequate housing.
•We know very well that changes will come only if people organize.

So, we have a person with a rather clear agenda coming into this "fact finding" mission.

By the way, why did you go after David Horowitz? The link in the op was written by somebody else.

[nighttimer]

Dude, aren't you tired of fighting all the straw-men you create?

Dude, aren't you? Your original post was nothing but a strawman designed to fan the flames of anti-United Natons resentment.

WTF? Are you serious? There is no country on the planet that had eliminated infant mortality and US is one of the countries at the very top in this respect. Certainly, it shouldn't be a priority for the UN as compared to countries where infant mortality is close to two orders of magnitude bigger. Your stubborn insistence to paint people who try to look at the whole picture as some kind of monsters is far more telling about you than it is about me or Rob

When robeiae asserts flatly that infant mortality in the United States isn't a problem and I can refute that assertion with data that it is, that's a settled issue as far as I am concerned.

I don't care if according to the UN perspective 28,000 dead infants isn't a priority and I care even less if you think 28,000 dead infants isn't a priority. It's one hell of a priority for the parents of those 28,000 dead infants and that's all I pointed out.

What I do care about is the United States continues to lag behind other countries in infant mortality despite all the money spent on healthcare and all the medical advances made. It shouldn't. Something is wrong and while zero infant mortality is probably beyond the immediate reach of medical science, 28,000 is still high. Too damned high to be blown off with a coldly dismissive, "it's not a problem."

dmytryp, you could not be more wrong when you accuse me of trying to paint you or robeiae as some kind of monsters.

I don't think of you as some kind of monster. I barely think of you at all.

[Andrew]

Except for liberal policies that have cut into the viens of industry and consequently caused the horror that is large urban centers, the US surely does not need the advice of a corrupt UN.
We enjoy the highest standard of living and have for decades because of our capitalist system, however muted by wrongheaded government force. Our education, health care and industry used to be to be the envy of the world but since the sixties we have allowed those who postulate on social change to put their ideas into practice.
We can measure the success and the results of the test may be disheartening. Problem is that many indicators are going in the wrong direction.
But some call it the right direction and try unsuccessfully to convince us that no, we are doing what is best for you. But the results speak for the results of many experiments and yet we continue to play in the sandbox built by a far left whose interests are those of the far left.
The UN? We should have been out years ago imo.

[dmytryp]

Dude, aren't you? Your original post was nothing but a strawman designed to fan the flames of anti-United Natons resentment.
Really? There is no double standard at the UNHRC? The worst offenders of human rights don't run it? Could have fooled me. And, by the way, you injected into this conversation completely unrelated issues like infant mortality and health care reform.



When robeiae asserts flatly that infant mortality in the United States isn't a problem and I can refute that assertion with data that it is, that's a settled issue as far as I am concerned.
1. I asked you and you haven't answered, do you know the differences in methodologies used to compare infant mortality rates between different countries?
2. Infant mortality was not only mentioned in the op (but injected by you into the debate), but it is not a problem for UN to adress. I am sure you can understand the difference between you and US doctors working to reduce it and between it being a major enough issue for UN to adress.

I don't care if according to the UN perspective 28,000 dead infants isn't a priority and I care even less if you think 28,000 dead infants isn't a priority. It's one hell of a priority for the parents of those 28,000 dead infants and that's all I pointed out.
So, you admit that you used a straw men? This conversation is about UNHRC and what should and shouldn't be a priority for it.

What I do care about is the United States continues to lag behind other countries in infant mortality despite all the money spent on healthcare and all the medical advances made. It shouldn't. Something is wrong and while zero infant mortality is probably beyond the immediate reach of medical science, 28,000 is still high. Too damned high to be blown off with a coldly dismissive, "it's not a problem."
Again, US is not only at the very top (or bottom, depending how you define it) of infant mortality in the world. High enough for it not being any problem for UN to be involved in. And as for lagging behind some countries, this again is debatable (that issue about the methodology), but largely beside the point of this thread (as I mentioned in the very first post from me on this issue).

dmytryp, you could not be more wrong when you accuse me of trying to paint you or robeiae as some kind of monsters.

I don't think of you as some kind of monster. I barely think of you at all.
It's such a relief.

Summary of your post -- no adressing any of the arguments. More straw men and irrelevant arguments. Good job.

[robeiae]

No, it IS relevant when you say "...comparitively speaking, we DON'T have real problems. Issues of homelessness, crime, drug addiction, infant mortality, life expectancy are but a few issues where the U.S. fairs better in some catergories and worst in others in comparison to Brazil and the rest of the world.
Again, I was talking about housing issues, not every issue. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. Mea culpa.


Infant mortality (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/infant_mortality/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) has been declining slightly in the United States. But 28,000 children under the age of 1 still die every year.

The main reason for the high rate is preterm delivery, and there was a 10 percent increase in such births from 2000 to 2006, according to recent figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db09.pdf). (In 2007, according to preliminary data just published by the C.D.C. , that rate declined by 1 percent, mainly among late preterm infants.)

In 2004, the latest year for which worldwide data are available, the United States had a higher rate than 28 countries, including Singapore, Japan, Cuba and Hungary. In 1960, the United States had a higher rate than only 11 countries.
Per DM's comment, if you're the UN, is a country whose infant mortality rate is far, far better than most countries really the one you'd be looking at?

You do realize that the WORLD infant mortality rate is is over six times what the U.S. rate is, right?

[robeiae]

The parents of the 28,000 American children who die every year would probably disagree with you both.
If only one child died every year, I'm sure that child's parents would also disagree.

[Don]

The UN wants to make the US look bad.

Shocking, absolutely shocking, I tell you.

My only question is WTF are they still doing based in the US? I've long been amazed that they've never been McVeighed.
I hope you're only being sarcastic Don and you really are not advocating some right-wing extremist blow up the United Nations building as Timothy McVeigh did to the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.

Because if you aren't kidding one might mistaking believe you are advocating an act of terrorism.

You might want to check your logic circuits. Expressing amazement at the lack of an action is in no way the same thing as advocating an action.

"I'm amazed the commies didn't roll right over that dude standing in Tienemann Square." <> "I wish the commies would squash that dude like a bug."

Logic fail!

[Cranky]

Are we done poking sharp sticks at each other? I'm running out of Band-Aids, and my first aid knowledge is limited, guys.

As a reminder, let's discuss the arguments, not sneer at each other.

[dmytryp]

You are no fun. Can we at least sneer at the arguments? :)

[Cranky]

*sigh*

Yes, fine, okay. :D

[dmytryp]

Yohoo! *happy dance*

[robeiae]

*leers at Cranky*

[Cranky]

It's sneers, not leers, Robovowels. Though with you, it's hard to tell the diff. :D

[dmytryp]

Well, not exactly on the op, but on a related note
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091028/wl_afp/unpakistanafghanistanusmissilerights
US drone strikes against suspected terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan could be breaking international laws against summary executions, the UN's top investigator of such crimes said.

"The problem with the United States is that it is making an increased use of drones/Predators (which are) particularly prominently used now in relation to Pakistan and Afghanistan," UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions Philip Alston told a press conference.

"My concern is that drones/Predators are being operated in a framework which may well violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law," he said.

US strikes with remote-controlled aircraft against Al-Qaeda and Taliban targets in Afghanistan and northwestern Pakistan have often resulted in civilian deaths and drawn bitter criticism from local populations.
"The onus is really on the United States government to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary extrajudicial executions aren't in fact being carried out through the use of these weapons," he added.
And the struggle to hamstring democracies fighting terrorists continues unabated.

[AMCrenshaw]

this is an itch that, when you scratch it, it just gets worse.

[MattW]

Well, not exactly on the op, but on a related note
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091028/wl_afp/unpakistanafghanistanusmissilerights

And the struggle to hamstring democracies fighting terrorists continues unabated.
What is the UN opinion on car bombs, bus bombs, artillery, katyusha rockets, mortar fire, dumb bombs, or any other indirect weapon?

[Noah Body]

When fired by Palestinians, or on behalf of Palestinians, at Israeli settlements or American interests, the UN has no firm opinion.

[Bird of Prey]

What is the UN opinion on car bombs, bus bombs, artillery, katyusha rockets, mortar fire, dumb bombs, or any other indirect weapon?

That it's a demonstration of asymmetrical warfare. They are fighting with whatever means they have. It's obvious that world opinion does not find people who are displaced and/or invaded and/or cheated out of their homes the culprits in an ongoing war of oppression. . . .

[MattW]

That it's a demonstration of asymmetrical warfare. They are fighting with whatever means they have. It's obvious that world opinion does not find people who are displaced and/or invaded and/or cheated out of their homes the culprits in an ongoing war of oppression. . . .
So a drone used to kill Taliban terrorists and resulting civilian casualties is a human rights violation, but a rocket and mortar attack intentionally against civilian targets is not? Because of motive and circumstances?

Sorry - I'm not buying it.

Any use of weapon is technically a human rights violation (for at least the victims). Being "oppressed" or a "freedom fighter" does not absolve any person or group of acting with human decency. Especially if they want to be taken seriously and respected on the international stage - unless all they want is to wipe out their enemies and show how bloodthirsty they are to the folks at home, they we're talking about something else entirely.

[Bird of Prey]

So a drone used to kill Taliban terrorists and resulting civilian casualties is a human rights violation. . .


I don't know. You tell me. Are we using a drone to keep people oppressed - without a home or a homeland - and retaliating because they resent it? Are we deliberately targeting civilians??

[MattW]

I don't know. You tell me. Are we using a drone to keep people oppressed - without a home or a homeland - and retaliating because they resent it? Are we deliberately targeting civilians??
I don't know either, but is a drone any different or worse than any other weapon, regardless of how it is used? Landmines? Remote control IEDs?

[Bird of Prey]

I don't know either, but is a drone any different or worse than any other weapon, regardless of how it is used? Landmines? Remote control IEDs?


What I'm trying to say, Matt, is that regardless of drones, landmines, grenades, ied's. . . the perceived "superior" military has the onus of justification. That's the way it is, particularly when the superior military is the invadER not the invadEE. Israel is having trouble justifying her occupation of Palestine, and for good reason. We were having trouble justifying the occupation of Iraq until we started announcing plans to leave. Now, we just see massive suicide bombs in Baghdad to shoo us out the door. . . I suppose to quickly usher in Iraq's independence so she can freely conduct a horrible civil war. . .

The point is the following: we have no justification nor can we ever hope to win a war waged undeclared, nor do we have any business engaging in military offenses without keeping to the declared objective, which requires a DECLARED war. Likewise, Israel. . . .

[dmytryp]

I am just curious, why are you bringing Israel into discussion?

[Noah Body]

Because it's, you know, somehow relevant to what the US does with its armed drones. Somehow. Some way. You just wait!

[MacAllister]

BoP, did you lose your login again?

[Bird of Prey]

BoP, did you lose your login again?

Yes and I just fixed it!!

[MacAllister]

Heh. Okay, then. Carry on.

[Bird of Prey]

I am just curious, why are you bringing Israel into discussion?

The same reason you usually do. Why did you start the thread??

[dmytryp]

?????
So, you bring up an unrelated issue (laced with diatribes against Israel) for no reason. Glad we cleared that one out.

[Bird of Prey]

Good duck, Dm.
My guess is you brought it up on the heels of another of your thread attacks on the UN because of its allegations of Israeli human rights abuses. The idea is to discredit the UN. . . .

[dmytryp]

The idea that I really need to discredit UNHRC is rather infantile. One only needs to look at the countries dominating it. On the other hand, you still refuse to answer why you brought Israel up in this thread. But that's ok. You can try and shift the conversation.

[AMCrenshaw]

The idea that I really need to discredit UNHRC is rather infantile. One only needs to look at the countries dominating it. On the other hand, you still refuse to answer why you brought Israel up in this thread. But that's ok. You can try and shift the conversation.

Hmm (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4186574&postcount=1)


After being done with Israel (for umpteens time)


AMC

[dmytryp]

So, let be as clear as possible (though I stated my positions previously pretty clearly) so BoP wouldn't need to ascribe some misterious motives to me. I think UN is a joke. I hink that UNHRC would be a sick joke if it wasn't routinely used by non-democratic states to attack the West and the values it holds dear. I think it has no business condemning or investigating anyone until it thoroughly reforms itself, starts applying human rights values universally and deals with the violations from worst to lightest (as most sane organisations would, especially those having a limited budget and resources). Untill then I will continue to point out the hypocricy, the politisation and general reprehensiveness of this body that does more to discredit the concept of human rights than probably any other body in the world.

Now, after saying this, I think US should engage more in the internal debate vis-a-vis the use of drones. I think this is sorely lacking in the media and it is a bad thing. I think there should be a vigourous debate as to moral and legal justifications of the use of these weapons. Even more importantly, ROE and acceptable levels of colateral damage should be examined and debated (as far as I have seen up till now, there is plenty of room for improvement). It isn't enough to be vaging a just war. Even a just war needs to be vaged justly.

[dmytryp]

Hmm (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4186574&postcount=1)




AMC
And?

[Bird of Prey]

So, let be as clear as possible (though I stated my positions previously pretty clearly) so BoP wouldn't need to ascribe some misterious motives to me. I think UN is a joke. I hink that UNHRC would be a sick joke if it wasn't routinely used by non-democratic states to attack the West and the values it holds dear. I think it has no business condemning or investigating anyone until it thoroughly reforms itself, starts applying human rights values universally and deals with the violations from worst to lightest (as most sane organisations would, especially those having a limited budget and resources). Untill then I will continue to point out the hypocricy, the politisation and general reprehensiveness of this body that does more to discredit the concept of human rights than probably any other body in the world.

Now, after saying this, I think US should engage more in the internal debate vis-a-vis the use of drones. I think this is sorely lacking in the media and it is a bad thing. I think there should be a vigourous debate as to moral and legal justifications of the use of these weapons. Even more importantly, ROE and acceptable levels of colateral damage should be examined and debated (as far as I have seen up till now, there is plenty of room for improvement). It isn't enough to be vaging a just war. Even a just war needs to be vaged justly.

Well I'll be, Dm. I never thought you'd be a little leery of drones.

I'm gonna start a new thread methinks. . . .

[veinglory]

The idea that I really need to discredit UNHRC is rather infantile. One only needs to look at the countries dominating it.

Which ones should I be looking at?n All of these countries sit on it.
Angola (2010) Bahrain (2011) Azerbaijan (2009) Argentina (2011) Canada (2009)
Burkina Faso (2011) Bangladesh (2009) Bosnia and Herzegovina (2010) Bolivia (2010) France (2011)
Cameroon (2009) China (2009) Russian Federation (2009) Brazil (2011) Germany (2009)
Djibouti (2009) India (2010) Slovakia (2011) Chile (2011) Italy (2010)
Egypt (2010) Indonesia (2010) Slovenia (2010) Cuba (2009) Netherlands (2010)
Gabon (2011) Japan (2011) Ukraine (2011) Mexico (2009) Switzerland (2009)
Ghana (2011) Jordan (2009) Nicaragua (2010) United Kingdom (2011)
Madagascar (2010) Malaysia (2009) Uruguay (2009)
Mauritius (2009) Pakistan (2011)
Nigeria (2009) Philippines (2010)
Senegal (2009) Qatar (2010)
South Africa (2010) Saudi Arabia (2009)
Zambia (2011) Republic of Korea (2011)

[dmytryp]

Which ones should I be looking at?n All of these countries sit on it.
Angola (2010) Bahrain (2011) Azerbaijan (2009) Argentina (2011) Canada (2009)
Burkina Faso (2011) Bangladesh (2009) Bosnia and Herzegovina (2010) Bolivia (2010) France (2011)
Cameroon (2009) China (2009) Russian Federation (2009) Brazil (2011) Germany (2009)
Djibouti (2009) India (2010) Slovakia (2011) Chile (2011) Italy (2010)
Egypt (2010) Indonesia (2010) Slovenia (2010) Cuba (2009) Netherlands (2010)
Gabon (2011) Japan (2011) Ukraine (2011) Mexico (2009) Switzerland (2009)
Ghana (2011) Jordan (2009) Nicaragua (2010) United Kingdom (2011)
Madagascar (2010) Malaysia (2009) Uruguay (2009)
Mauritius (2009) Pakistan (2011)
Nigeria (2009) Philippines (2010)
Senegal (2009) Qatar (2010)
South Africa (2010) Saudi Arabia (2009)
Zambia (2011) Republic of Korea (2011)
I'll give you a hint.Take most of the votes (you can take the lates on the Goldstone report that I posted in a "UN Condemns Israel thread") and look for the breakdown of the vote. Then see the human rights record of the states voting "for" and some of the abstaining. Then, I suggest you do a little bit og googling on the history of this council and even statements by its former chairman etc. The council is broken down by regions, it is dominated by the OIC and non-affiliated states . It is chaired today by Lybia, if I am not mistaken, and co-chaired by Iran.

[dmytryp]

Well I'll be, Dm. I never thought you'd be a little leery of drones.

I'm gonna start a new thread methinks. . . .
I am sorry, what gave you the idea that I condone excessive killing of civillians with any kind of weapon?

[Bird of Prey]

I am sorry, what gave you the idea that I condone excessive killing of civillians with any kind of weapon?

A loaded question, Dm. . . . You don't approve of drones yet you think the US offensive is justified??

[dmytryp]

A loaded question, Dm. . . . You don't approve of drones yet you think the US offensive is justified??
I don't approve of civillian/combatant ratios allowed in these attacks. nd no, this is not a loaded question. If you think in any way that I condone needless killing you simply don't know me.