UN Summit Stuff

On September 22, 2009 a United Nations conference was held in New York.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090923/ap_on_re_us/un_un_general_assembly.

During this Summit UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon asked world leaders to address several issues imperative to the well being of the planet and it's people: the increasing threat of a drastic climate change, the world-wide cleansing of nuclear weapons, and the increase of poverty caused by the global financial crisis.

The next day 100 heads of state convened in the largest-ever summit on global warming and discussed how to combat our planet's climate change. This reminded me of something that occurred about a year ago. A gathering of world leaders was held in South Africa to address the issue of global warming. Each nation leader was asked to sign an agreement that they would reduce their countries emission of green-house gases by two percent. President Bush, along with a small number of others, did not agree to sign. He said it would be too harmful to our economy. The conference administrator, hiding his frustration, said that the issue would be brought up again in a few months (when the United States had a new president).

When I read that the largest-ever summit on global warming was held in the Obama run United States this week, afew thoughts came to my mind. Will the United State's change of president have a significant impact on the fight against global warming? Is it up to the U.S. to set the example of change? Is it naive to think it can be done without significantly affecting our economy? Does our portayal of fromer President Bush as a stubborn fool give us false certainty that we can commit to propositions like the kind Bush refused in South Africa? POST YOUR COMMENTS!

Muhammad Cartoons Revisited

In about a week Yale University will release a new book on the destruction caused by the Danish newspaper cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad. Yale University has removed the cartoons themselves from the book, sparking dismay and argument amongst Yale professors and alumni. The argument supporting removal of these cartoons from the book is that they could cause unnecessary violence. Although this seems sensible to most, many Yale alum find it unacceptable. Twenty-five Yale alum sent a signed petition to the University asking that the cartoons be re-added to the book. John Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations calls it, "Intellectual cowardice", deeming it self-defeating for Yale. Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors, wrote in a recent letter that Yale's decision effectively means: "We do not negotiate with terrorists. We just accede to their anticipated demands." This got me wondering a few things; Can the Muslim population as a whole really be deemed "terrorists" because of their reaction to the cartoons to their Prophet? Is it really cowardly not to re-publish the cartoons that once caused so much destruction? Are those in favor of publication pushing their cause for unspoken reasons? Are we more concerned with respecting the Muslim community or smiting the "terrorists"? Your opinions are greatly appreciated :)