Farewell, Kofi Annan: U.N. Chief’s Legacy Smeared in Oil, Food, Hypocrisy, Greed and Bureaucratic Twittery

Today, outgoing U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan delivered a “farewell” speech in Missouri, and he became one of the first Sec. Gen.’s in the U.N.’s long and bureaucratic history to be scathingly critical of a current president’s policies before leaving office.

Annan will no doubt go on to a lucrative career as a public speaker, and possibly Morgan Freeman’s stunt double, but should we heed Annan’s criticism, or laugh at it as empty rhetoric from an empty suit? Let’s first take a look at some of the “best of” the man who’s doing the sanctimonious finger-pointing.

Oil for Food

We all remember the “Oil-for-Food” scandal. The United Nations’ “Oil-for-Food” program, which began in 1996, permitted Saddam Hussein to sell oil, provided that the revenue went for food, medicine and other necessities. It was a deal between the world’s largest bureaucracy and one of the planet’s most crooked and ruthless dictators. What could possibly go wrong?

It wasn’t long before it was discovered that Hussein was skimming money off the top, and bottom for that matter. Skimming? More like building a dam. The General Accounting Office estimated that Hussein’s regime netted over $10 billion. The psychotic-yet-most-entrepreneurial mustachioed one who had a destiny with a spider hole was, with a lot of help, inflating prices on humanitarian imports, which allowed him to sell that much more oil and keep the extra for himself and whoever else was involved. High markups, high profits and skimming – Iraq had become a 172,000 square mile jewelry store run by Jimmy Hoffa.

(This is the part where Columbo walks toward the door, pauses, and turns around, and says:) “Oh yes, one more thing…Kofi Annan’s son was receiving money from a company monitoring the Oil-for-Food program.”

Iraq Invasion

In a move taken straight from the “Berkeley Guide To Politically Correct Dating,” the United Nations said, in essence, that it was okay for the United States to invade Iraq, provided the U.S. got Iraq’s permission first. “May I invade” is the chapter in the book just after “May I put my arm around you” and “May I unhook your bra?” 

Kofi Annan and the U.N. sat idly by as Saddam Hussein has rebuilt an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, committed countless atrocities, and used financial goodies and other perks to lure nuclear scientists into the country in efforts to develop atomic weapons, and the U.N. was cool with that because Saddam let them “inspect” (provided they didn’t look in the crawl space).

I’m willing to bet that there are still people meeting in out-of-the-way U.N. offices – like Japanese soldiers on remote South Pacific Islands in the 1950’s who didn’t know the war was over — who are still debating whether or not Saddam should be removed from power.

“Based in the U.S.” hypocrisy

Why would the United Nations and Annan even want the U.S. as a member state? They’re constantly whining about America owing them a ton of money (something I thought Ted Turner took care of with his billion-dollar donation, but from the sound of things, Turner changed his mind and instead decided to spend the money to have the world’s most expensive lobotomy).

Not only does the U.N. claim we owe them money, but they have the audacity to say how bad the U.S. is and then also be headquartered in this country? If I’m just a few days late on my gym membership dues, they don’t let me in the door, let alone move the entire operation into my house. Something doesn’t add up. But then, that’s the legacy of Kofi Annan’s United Nations.

When Hugo Chavez visited the United States a few weeks ago, he asked the U.N. to consider relocating their headquarters to Venezuela. It was one of those rare times when I agreed with Chavez: It’s time for the U.N. to move. This won’t happen at any time soon though, as the U.N. headquarters in New York recently received a $2 billion ”extreme home makeover: bureaucrat edition.” Like jurors sequestered in a Four Seasons, it could prove tough to get them out of there.

*****

Here are some other classic Kofi Annan conflicts of interest. If this is the same man who’s pointing a bony, crooked diplomatic finger at the United States for not doing things his way, we should take that as a compliment.

Oh, and if Kofi’s speech today should mention war crimes and other atrocities, let’s be sure to include those committed by U.N. “peacekeepers” in all parts of the world during the watch of Kofi Annan.

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com

Monday's Column: The Apple Dumpling Gang Chides Again

Today’s column over at WorldNetDaily is on the coming (and current) appeasement of the Democrat majority by Republicans, and the Democrat forgiveness offered to any Republican who placates them. From the Iraq Study Group to soon to be Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, it’s getting comical in DC. In other words, “business as usual.”

Give a read to “The Apple Dumpling Gang Chides Again” for more.

Monday’s Column: The Apple Dumpling Gang Chides Again

Today’s column over at WorldNetDaily is on the coming (and current) appeasement of the Democrat majority by Republicans, and the Democrat forgiveness offered to any Republican who placates them. From the Iraq Study Group to soon to be Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, it’s getting comical in DC. In other words, “business as usual.”

Give a read to “The Apple Dumpling Gang Chides Again” for more.

Bush's Fast-Track Confirmation Plan Continues: May Nominate Muslim U.N. Ambassador

If President Bush hasn’t come up with this plan to get his nominees through a Senate that will soon be controlled by Democrats on purpose, it sure is one heck of an accident.

First, Bush nominated Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. Gates’ answer to a single question from Carl Levin secured a landslide thumbs-up from the full Senate. When Gates was asked if the U.S. was winning the war in Iraq, he answered “no.” It was the two-lettered word heard ’round the partisan world.

As a result of the resounding success of this one instance of placating, either truthfully or cunningly, Senate Dems, I then recommended a similar approach for all future Bush nominees.

It could be that Bush is up to it again. Robert Novak believes that a Bush administration Muslim could be the front-runner to be nominated to replace the outgoing John Bolton as Ambassador to the United Nations:

Zalmay Khalilzad, who was announced this week as leaving as U.S. ambassador to Iraq, is the leading prospect to replace John Bolton as envoy to the United Nations.

President Bush was reported by aides as looking for someone who approximates Bolton’s combination of toughness and diplomatic skill and has tentatively decided on Khalilzad. A native of Afghanistan, he has served in government posts dating back to 1985 and is the highest-ranking Muslim in the Bush administration.

Another nominee on the fast-track! What high-profile Senate Democrat is going to have the brass donkeys to put the kibosh on a Muslim candidate for any post? I didn’t think so.

———-

Note: if you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com

Bush’s Fast-Track Confirmation Plan Continues: May Nominate Muslim U.N. Ambassador

If President Bush hasn’t come up with this plan to get his nominees through a Senate that will soon be controlled by Democrats on purpose, it sure is one heck of an accident.

First, Bush nominated Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. Gates’ answer to a single question from Carl Levin secured a landslide thumbs-up from the full Senate. When Gates was asked if the U.S. was winning the war in Iraq, he answered “no.” It was the two-lettered word heard ’round the partisan world.

As a result of the resounding success of this one instance of placating, either truthfully or cunningly, Senate Dems, I then recommended a similar approach for all future Bush nominees.

It could be that Bush is up to it again. Robert Novak believes that a Bush administration Muslim could be the front-runner to be nominated to replace the outgoing John Bolton as Ambassador to the United Nations:

Zalmay Khalilzad, who was announced this week as leaving as U.S. ambassador to Iraq, is the leading prospect to replace John Bolton as envoy to the United Nations.

President Bush was reported by aides as looking for someone who approximates Bolton’s combination of toughness and diplomatic skill and has tentatively decided on Khalilzad. A native of Afghanistan, he has served in government posts dating back to 1985 and is the highest-ranking Muslim in the Bush administration.

Another nominee on the fast-track! What high-profile Senate Democrat is going to have the brass donkeys to put the kibosh on a Muslim candidate for any post? I didn’t think so.

———-

Note: if you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com

Help A Reader With Jimmah's Contact Info

This morning, I got an email from a nice lady named Sylvia from parts unknown. Maybe one of you can help her out:

I WOULD LIKE TO WRITE TO JIMMY CARTER. CAN YOU GIVE ME HIS EMAIL ADDRESS  OR IF NOT CAN YOU GIVE ME HIS HOME ADDRESS?  THANK YOU FOR YOUR FINE WORK.  I BELIEVE CARTER IS ANGRY AT USA BECAUSE HE WAS KICKED OUT OF OFFICE.   

THANK YOU. 

Here was the best I could offer in reply:

Sylvia,

I wish I could help you out, but if you want to get in touch with Mr. Carter, I’d suggest first contacting Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez or Hamas. I’m sure they have Jimmy’s home phone number and private email address in their little black book.

If it helps, below is a map of Plains, Georgia, Jimmah’s home town. Just drive around until you see some really old  Billy Beer empties and attack rabbits. Jimmy might be nearby.

Help A Reader With Jimmah’s Contact Info

This morning, I got an email from a nice lady named Sylvia from parts unknown. Maybe one of you can help her out:

I WOULD LIKE TO WRITE TO JIMMY CARTER. CAN YOU GIVE ME HIS EMAIL ADDRESS  OR IF NOT CAN YOU GIVE ME HIS HOME ADDRESS?  THANK YOU FOR YOUR FINE WORK.  I BELIEVE CARTER IS ANGRY AT USA BECAUSE HE WAS KICKED OUT OF OFFICE.   

THANK YOU. 

Here was the best I could offer in reply:

Sylvia,

I wish I could help you out, but if you want to get in touch with Mr. Carter, I’d suggest first contacting Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez or Hamas. I’m sure they have Jimmy’s home phone number and private email address in their little black book.

If it helps, below is a map of Plains, Georgia, Jimmah’s home town. Just drive around until you see some really old  Billy Beer empties and attack rabbits. Jimmy might be nearby.

Who's Funnier, Men or Women?

Christopher Hitchens has an interesting article in Vanity Fair entitled “Why Women Aren’t Funny.” While I agree with some of the piece, I’d like to propose some alternate possibilities.

Hitchens’ article concerns, for the most part, deliberate humor – the ability and desire to be, and to recognize, funny. The crux of the article is this: Men need to be funny to attract women, and women don’t need that particular lure in their tackle box, presumably because the ladies have something sociologists call “boobs.”

I’d like to delve just a little deeper though and draw the distinction between somebody who is funny, and somebody who makes us laugh for whatever reason, for the two can be as far apart as Michael Moore and a salad bar.

We’ve all met somebody who has a good sense of humor and cracks us up, as well as somebody who doesn’t make us laugh who thinks he’s hilarious. My personal favorites are those who have no idea they’re funny but keep me rolling for various reasons — these people are almost always female. Think Lucy Ricardo, but in the real world.

My timing in running across the Hitchens piece was convenient, because I was having a similar discussion with my wife just a couple of days ago. I said, trying to be as sexually objective as possible, that listening to four women at a table is usually much funnier to listen to than four men at a table. Why? For me, it’s predictability. Men are much simpler creatures. You’ll hear them talking about football, which waitress they’d like to take home and introduce to their pillow, and who’s picking up the next round of shots and beers. Sure, a woman, not having these traits already living in her head day in and day out, might find these conversations funny, but only if she was extremely starved for entertainment and perhaps even lobotomized.

Women are wired differently and their humor tends to be more accidental, but as a result, funnier in an improvisational sense. Women are, as a general rule, more outwardly complex in their view of life. Women play more psychological games. With the option to solve problems via testosterone induced brute force removed from the table by a playful God denying them a Y chromosome at conception, women must instead be more cunning and intellectually manipulating on multiple levels. They’re emotionally deeper. They actually try to figure out “what he’s thinking” (if that’s not funny I don’t know what is). These peculiarities and complexities add up to a bizarre and complicated form of funny, in a “Rube Goldberg machine” sort of way. It’s there if you know where to look.

I agree with Hitchens that men become funny to impress women, but it’s that very fact that may skew the numbers a bit and lead us to believe, based on the simple math due to the sheer volume of participants, that men are funnier than women. So many blind squirrels pattering about are bound to find a few extra nuts along the way, if you’ll pardon the expression. So I think it’s a mistake to make the assumption that men are funnier simply because, at any given time, there are an overwhelmingly higher number of them trying to be.

But, even if we assume for a moment that men are funnier than women, absent that humorous inspiration — without the female to impress and the challenge of making her smile in any way that doesn’t involve helping with the laundry or offering forth a diamond ring – much of the reason for the humor would cease to exist. In other words, who is really responsible for the joke: The would-be comedian, or his muse?

Who’s funnier, men or women? Let me put it this way. Which tube of a two-part epoxy resin is stickier, the diepoxy or the diamine? Until the two are brought together, the answer is “neither.”

In the end though, all I really know about the science of humor is this: There is nothing less funny or more typically male than somebody discussing what’s funny by using epoxy as his chief example, so we’ll just stop here and move on to plow richer comedic farmland — hopefully.

According to the Discovery Channel, “a certain brain region in females shows greater activation in response to humor, implying greater reward response and possibly less reward expectation.” Whew!

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com

Who’s Funnier, Men or Women?

Christopher Hitchens has an interesting article in Vanity Fair entitled “Why Women Aren’t Funny.” While I agree with some of the piece, I’d like to propose some alternate possibilities.

Hitchens’ article concerns, for the most part, deliberate humor – the ability and desire to be, and to recognize, funny. The crux of the article is this: Men need to be funny to attract women, and women don’t need that particular lure in their tackle box, presumably because the ladies have something sociologists call “boobs.”

I’d like to delve just a little deeper though and draw the distinction between somebody who is funny, and somebody who makes us laugh for whatever reason, for the two can be as far apart as Michael Moore and a salad bar.

We’ve all met somebody who has a good sense of humor and cracks us up, as well as somebody who doesn’t make us laugh who thinks he’s hilarious. My personal favorites are those who have no idea they’re funny but keep me rolling for various reasons — these people are almost always female. Think Lucy Ricardo, but in the real world.

My timing in running across the Hitchens piece was convenient, because I was having a similar discussion with my wife just a couple of days ago. I said, trying to be as sexually objective as possible, that listening to four women at a table is usually much funnier to listen to than four men at a table. Why? For me, it’s predictability. Men are much simpler creatures. You’ll hear them talking about football, which waitress they’d like to take home and introduce to their pillow, and who’s picking up the next round of shots and beers. Sure, a woman, not having these traits already living in her head day in and day out, might find these conversations funny, but only if she was extremely starved for entertainment and perhaps even lobotomized.

Women are wired differently and their humor tends to be more accidental, but as a result, funnier in an improvisational sense. Women are, as a general rule, more outwardly complex in their view of life. Women play more psychological games. With the option to solve problems via testosterone induced brute force removed from the table by a playful God denying them a Y chromosome at conception, women must instead be more cunning and intellectually manipulating on multiple levels. They’re emotionally deeper. They actually try to figure out “what he’s thinking” (if that’s not funny I don’t know what is). These peculiarities and complexities add up to a bizarre and complicated form of funny, in a “Rube Goldberg machine” sort of way. It’s there if you know where to look.

I agree with Hitchens that men become funny to impress women, but it’s that very fact that may skew the numbers a bit and lead us to believe, based on the simple math due to the sheer volume of participants, that men are funnier than women. So many blind squirrels pattering about are bound to find a few extra nuts along the way, if you’ll pardon the expression. So I think it’s a mistake to make the assumption that men are funnier simply because, at any given time, there are an overwhelmingly higher number of them trying to be.

But, even if we assume for a moment that men are funnier than women, absent that humorous inspiration — without the female to impress and the challenge of making her smile in any way that doesn’t involve helping with the laundry or offering forth a diamond ring – much of the reason for the humor would cease to exist. In other words, who is really responsible for the joke: The would-be comedian, or his muse?

Who’s funnier, men or women? Let me put it this way. Which tube of a two-part epoxy resin is stickier, the diepoxy or the diamine? Until the two are brought together, the answer is “neither.”

In the end though, all I really know about the science of humor is this: There is nothing less funny or more typically male than somebody discussing what’s funny by using epoxy as his chief example, so we’ll just stop here and move on to plow richer comedic farmland — hopefully.

According to the Discovery Channel, “a certain brain region in females shows greater activation in response to humor, implying greater reward response and possibly less reward expectation.” Whew!

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com

Reid and Pelosi Courageously Vow to Block Senate Pay Raise —

From the A.P. via the Washington Post:

Members of Congress are in line for a $3,300 pay raise effective Jan. 1 unless they block it, and Democrats said Thursday they intend to try.

Officials said Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California and Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the party’s leaders, had notified Republicans they will try to add the anti-pay-raise provision to a bill that provides funds for most government agencies through Feb. 15.

Reid and Pelosi are standing firm in showing solidarity with every other hard-working blue-collar American who has to make do on $141,300 a year and endless perks, and they won’t accept a penny more! (shady land deals, however, are still fine)