December 29, 2006
According to Iraqi sources the murderer will dance at 10pm EST.
h/t Fausta
Posted by: caltechgirl at
04:50 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.
December 14, 2006
Today, Mr Ban pledged to "be mindful of... loyalty, discretion, and conscience" and to "set the highest ethical standards..."
Even if all he does is remind people that taking bribes is a bad thing, he'll already be miles ahead of Mr. Annan's repugnant term at the helm.
The Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal reminds us of the words and deeds of the UN under Annan's direction:
Funny what can happen when a ball-less, incompetent, selfish mis-manager takes over a large organization, no?...When Mr. Annan was named Secretary General 10 years ago, he did so as the U.S.-backed candidate of reform. Jesse Helms, then-chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Mr. Annan that "if you choose to be an agent of real and deep-seated change, you will find many supporters--and even allies--here in the U.S. Congress."
Senator Helms's expectations were not met. Seven years later--thanks to U.S. military action that Mr. Annan did everything in his power to prevent--we learned that he had presided over the greatest bribery scheme in history, known as Oil for Food. We learned that Benon Sevan, Mr. Annan's trusted confidant in charge of administering the program, had himself been a beneficiary of Iraqi kickbacks to the tune of $160,000. We learned that Mr. Annan's chief of staff, Iqbal Riza, had ordered potentially incriminating documents to be destroyed. We learned that Mr. Annan and his deputy, Louise Frechette, were both aware of the kickback scheme but failed to report it to the Security Council, as their fiduciary duties required. However, we haven't yet learned whether the senior Annan illegally helped his son Kojo obtain a discounted Mercedes, an issue on which the Secretary General has stonewalled reporters.
Earlier this year, Mr. Annan was also forced to place eight senior U.N. procurement officials on leave pending investigations on bribery and other charges. Vladimir Kuznetsov, the head of the U.N. budget-oversight committee, was indicted this year on money-laundering charges. Alexander Yakovlev, another procurement official, pled guilty to skimming nearly $1 million off U.N. contracts. The U.N.'s own office of Internal Oversight found that U.N. peacekeeping operations had mismanaged some $300 million in expenditures.
...
Mr. Annan came to office after a stint as head of U.N. peacekeeping operations. The period corresponded with the massacre in Srebenica of 7,000 Bosnians and the genocide of 800,000 Tutsis in Rwanda, both of which were facilitated by the nonfeasance of peacekeepers on the ground. It was later revealed that Mr. Annan's office explicitly forbade peacekeepers from raiding Hutu arms caches in Rwanda just four months before the genocide.
The world's worst man-made humanitarian catastrophes have since taken place in Zimbabwe, North Korea, Congo and Darfur. Mr. Annan has been mostly silent about the first two, perhaps on the time-honored U.N. principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of member states other than the U.S. In the Congo, U.N. peacekeepers haven't stopped the bloodshed, but they have made themselves notorious as sexual predators.
These are the facts, folks. Under Annan's "leadership" the UN has failed. In Darfur, in Congo, in Somalia. In Kosovo and Rwanda and the middle east. And these failures can all be traced to one person: Kofi Annan.
In a global community the objective SHOULD be the protection of human rights and promotion of tolerance and communication. Under Annan, the UN's objective appeared to be "anything that makes the US look bad".
By default, that attitude prevents the neediest among us (like the Darfuris) from receiving the help that would otherwise be freely offered.
Ask the Kosovars.
Mr Annan has singlehandedly brought the UN from an organization of hope, that had the possibility of effecting real global change to a mockery of its former self.
Opinion Journal says it more eloquently than I can:
Mr. Annan came to power at a moment when it was at least plausible to believe that a properly reformed U.N. could serve the purposes it was originally meant to serve: to be a guarantor of collective security and a moral compass in global affairs. Mr. Annan's legacy is that nobody can entertain those hopes today.So Long, Kofi. Please enjoy a very restful retirement somewhere far away from the media. And while you're at it, see if you can convince your buddy Jimmeh to join you.
h/t Lex
Posted by: caltechgirl at
12:56 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 761 words, total size 5 kb.
December 11, 2006
Answer below the fold, in case you didn't knowOver at HuffPo, Alec Baldwin, (of the "Film Actors Guild") speaks out on what's wrong, and what we need to do about it. One of these is real, and one is a line from a puppet movie. Can you tell which is which?
Quote #1: "By following the rules of the Film Actor's Guild, the world can become a better place; that handles dangerous people with talk, and reasoning; that, is the fag way. One day you'll all look at the world us actors created and say, "wow, good going, fag. You really made the world a better place, didntcha, fag?" "
Quote #2: "There is an answer to this problem. There is a way to defeat terrorism while building new and better alliances in the Arab world. It will be an enormously complex and difficult diplomatic puzzle. But the first step might be oddly simple. Get rid of the CIA, which has outlived its usefulness and is an embarrassment to this great country, and rebuild and reform US intelligence capabilities to fight this new type of threat. I think our hopes must begin there."
more...
Posted by: caltechgirl at
09:39 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.
I wish some people in this country could be this direct and honest:
Here's the MONEY QUOTE, though:"People want to make sense of two emotions: our recognition of what we legitimately hold in common and what we legitimately hold distinct. When I decided to make this speech about multiculturalism and integration, some people entirely reasonably said that integration or lack of it was not the problem. The 7/7 bombers were integrated at one level in terms of lifestyle and work. Others in many communities live lives very much separate and set in their own community and own culture, but are no threat to anyone.
But this is, in truth, not what I mean when I talk of integration. Integration, in this context, is not about culture or lifestyle. It is about values. It is about integrating at the point of shared, common unifying British values. It isn't about what defines us as people, but as citizens, the rights and duties that go with being a member of our society.
Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and other faiths have a perfect right to their own identity and religion, to practice their faith and to conform to their culture. This is what multicultural, multi-faith Britain is about. That is what is legitimately distinctive.
But when it comes to our essential values - belief in democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, equal treatment for all, respect for this country and its shared heritage - then that is where we come together, it is what we hold in common; it is what gives us the right to call ourselves British. At that point no distinctive culture or religion supercedes our duty to be part of an integrated United Kingdom.
...
We must respect both our right to differ and the duty to express any difference in a way fully consistent with the values that bind us together.
So: how do we do this?
Partly we achieve it by talking openly about the problem. The very act of exploring its nature, debating and discussing it doesn't just get people thinking about the type of Britain we want for today's world; but it also eases the anxiety. It dispels any notion that it is forbidden territory. Failure to talk about it is not politically correct; it's just stupid.
Partly the answer lies in precisely defining our common values and making it clear that we expect all our citizens to conform to them. Obedience to the rule of law, to democratic decision-making about who governs us, to freedom from violence and discrimination are not optional for British citizens. They are what being British is about. Being British carries rights. It also carries duties. And those duties take clear precedence over any cultural or religious practice.
Our tolerance is part of what makes Britain, Britain. So conform to it; or don't come here. We don't want the hate-mongers, whatever their race, religion or creed. If you come here lawfully, we welcome you. If you are permitted to stay here permanently, you become an equal member of our community and become one of us. Then you, and all of us, who want to, can worship God in our own way, take pride in our different cultures after our own fashion, respect our distinctive histories according to our own traditions; but do so within a shared space of shared values in which we take no less pride and show no less respect.
The right to be different. The duty to integrate. That is what being British means. And neither racists nor extremists should be allowed to destroy it.
h/t Cop The Truth
Posted by: caltechgirl at
09:12 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 620 words, total size 4 kb.
December 07, 2006
I am overjoyed for what seems to be a close and loving family, by all accounts, to be adding a new member. I am beyond happy for Mary and her partner Heather that they are about to realize their dream of becoming parents.
Seems a lot of people can't feel that way. On one side, they're too busy blaming the VP for supporting policies that go against his daughter's (and her partner's) interest. On the other side, they're panicking because a conservative leader is about to have a grandchild with homosexual parents.
Every article I've seen on this goes out of its way to point out that Gays and Straights are both up in arms over Mary Cheney's bundle of joy.
You'd think it was the second coming, or at least a new Brangelina baby for all of the fuss going on out there today. Or maybe that you'd picked up an old newspaper. Didn't we go through this when Melissa Etheridge and her (then) partner Julie Cypher had children a decade ago?
Can't we get past this and just say that a healthy baby is a blessing to a family, no matter how traditional? Can we admit that two stable parents are always better than one, whether it's two moms, two dads, or one of each? Can we agree that this child will have some wonderful role models for strength and integrity?
I am disgusted. These opportunistic political vultures have taken what should be a happy occasion for the entire family and turned it into a political fracas.
For myself, I will say this much: Congratulations to Mary and Heather and their families. I wish you a healthy pregnancy and a healthy baby, and all the joys that come with that. Anything else that anyone has to say on the subject is bullshite.
Posted by: caltechgirl at
01:59 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 328 words, total size 2 kb.
74 queries taking 0.0806 seconds, 201 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
