I am breaking radio silence midweek, in the midst of writing a chapter in my little book, Returning to Earth: Abiding Principles of US-UN Relations: The Obama Administration and Beyond ... the chapter, as it happens, is titled: "The UN-of-Values: From Human Rights to Multiculturalism in the General Assembly and Among the NGOs." This chapter covers, among other things, the policy the US ought to adopt with respect to the UN Human Rights Council, or such extravaganzas as Durban I and II. So I was of course interested in the coverage of the award of the Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson, who oversaw the Durban I in 2001. Given that Durban I was one of the greatest street fairs of illiberalism, not to mention anti-semitism, since the 1930s, I of course viewed the whole thing as something between a failure to vet her resume and what I would speculate was an attempt to placate some faction within the administration that worships at the idealized teat of the UN and wanted a consolation prize for the US pulling out of Durban II. Enter the Washington Post's Chuck Lane, who wrote in the Post and added in no uncertain terms in a CBS TV interview (following the Robinson interview in the clip) that he couldn't see what could justify handing Robinson this country's highest civilian honor.
Okay, back to writing the chapter. Adieu!