March 29th, 2009

Chris Keeley

(no subject)

PAUL OUTERBRIDGE: COMMAND PERFORMANCE,” an exhibition of some 100 of his perfectionist, intensely colored, erotically charged pictures at the J. Paul Getty Museum, should be something to see.

Born in NewPAUL OUTERBRIDGE: York, Outerbridge worked for Vogue, Vanity Fair and Harper’s Magazine in the early 1920s. In 1925 he went to Paris, where he got to know Man Ray, Marcel Duchamp and Constantin Brancusi; he was back in America in the ’30s. He is noted for his development of the carbro printing process, which produced colors of nearly hallucinogenic vividness.

Including abstract elements and objects like kitchen utensils, masks and machine parts, Outerbridge’s still lifes are suavely formal and dreamily surreal. But his most arresting pictures are of beautiful women in fetishistic finery. Combining neo-Classical beauty and modern kinkiness, they anticipate the works of Helmut Newton, Robert Mapplethorpe and other photographers who, like latter-day alchemists, turned pornography into high art. Tuesday through Aug. 9, J. Paul Getty Museum, Getty Center, 1200 Getty Center Drive, Los Angeles, (310) 440-7300,

Chris Keeley

The Limits of Tolerance and Intolerance.

The Limits of Tolerance and Intolerance.

Th subject of the symposium was "The Limits of Tolerance and Intolerance." There were eight speakers formed into two panels and a keynoter (Roger Wilkins). I spoke on the second panel on the subject "Diplomacy and Intolerance." I was allotted 20 minutes and used fifteen. The text follows, and you can read it in less time than that, if you are interested.

Cosmos Club Symposium

   I may be guilty of naiveté or presumption, but I have chosen to interpret the title of this symposium as meaning that we should be promoting tolerance and limiting or reducing intolerance. If I am wrong about that, I beg your forgiveness and indulgence of what follows. My assignment was to discuss the diplomatic implications of this struggle. I have neither the ability nor the time allotment to try to address the many conflicts around the world that have resulted from clashes over intolerance, so I have chosen to talk about what our country and the international community are trying to do to promote tolerance.
   Diplomacy is what national states practice in their dealings with one another in an effort to advance their mutual welfare. I will certainly not rehash the questionable performance of the American government in this area over the past eight years, when the use of a large military force advantage over actual and potential adversaries was the preferred tactic instead of diplomacy. But I will mention one low point back in January 2002 when the president, in his State of the Union speech to Congress, or perhaps it was his speechwriter, used the unfortunate formulation of the existence of an “axis of evil” made up of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. Never mind that the former two states had engaged in a bloody war for eight years in the 1980s, or that North Korea was a continent distant and much more concerned with its immediate neighborhood. This was not an axis by any stretch, and look at what transpired. We clandestinely supported Iraq against Iran and then attacked and invaded Iraq twice, while we refused to talk with Iran for some 30 years after its revolution, which included holding a host of our diplomats hostage for 444 days. As for North Korea, we first abandoned an agreement negotiated by the prior administration and then spent years negotiating a new agreement that did not succeed in its purpose of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons there, while in Iraq the alleged WMD were not found as promised, and while in Iran major sanctions have not stopped its nuclear enrichment program. So much for that axis.
  Collapse )
Chris Keeley


Many intelligent and well-intentioned people have given up on the two state solution to Israel-Palestine, but from this article it appears that it is still on the table. The mystery is why Israel does not realize that it will never receive a more generous offer from the Palestinians, the Arabs and the Muslim world to become an accepted, recognized, normal state in and of the Middle East, living at peace and in harmony with all of its neighbors near and far. The Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 is a fair, just, reasonable and workable basis for a final settlement of the conflict, supported by 57 Arab and Muslim states. Why doesn't the U.S. Government grab it and convince Israel to accept it. The alternative is a one-state "solution" that would eventually result in the disappearance of a Zionist Jewish State period. Israel must decide to accept the 1967 borders. Grabbing more Palestinian land violates international law, UN Resolutions, and the will of the rest of the world. That disappearance cannot be what their God intended for the people of Israel.

ad_iconYour Ad Here
Israel's Step Back From Peace

By Saeb Erakat
Saturday, March 28, 2009; A13

Emphasizing diplomacy and engagement over isolation and confrontation, President Obama has spoken eloquently of a new era of American leadership. Of the changes he has promised, the most important to Palestinians is his commitment to reinvigorating the Middle East peace process.

Resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict remains crucial to achieving stability and peace in the Middle East as well as to advancing vital U.S. interests. The Obama administration clearly understands this, prioritizing the peace process as part of a more integrated approach to U.S. policy in the region. America's renewed commitment to brokering a just and lasting peace between Palestinians and Israelis offers a measure of hope to Palestinians living under the weight of occupation. But it also comes at a time when Israel's own commitment to peace is in doubt after the formation of a right-wing coalition government.

Peace is not a word that sits comfortably with the Israeli right, Collapse )