--- Kofi, don't get me started again.

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan says
the former head of the U.N.-run oil-for-food programme will cooperate
with an investigation into charges of bribes and kickbacks from Saddam
Hussein's government.
The name of Benon Sevan, an undersecretary-general, was discovered in a
document that alleged he had received payment in the form of an oil
allotment. Sevan has denied the charge.
"He should and will be available for the investigation, and we are
discussing how to make sure that he will be available," Annan told
reporters on Thursday. "If U.N. staff are found to be guilty, we will
deal with them very severely."

Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? I suppose so. Until you read further and get to this.

Annan said that if the Iraqi government sold oil outside the programme, this was not necessarily the fault of the U.N.

Lemme see if I've got this straight, Kofi. IF
the Iraqi government sold oil outside of the programme, this wasn't the
UN's fault. That's what you're saying? Well, far be it from me to point
out that the sanctions limiting Saddam from selling his oil to regular
buyers until he disarmed were set up by the UN in the first place.
After all, you set up the Oil For Food program to make sure that the
oil revenues would go to the people, rather toward lining Saddam's
pockets, right? This is what the whole frigging thing was there for in
the first place, right? Apparently, however, it's not the UN's fault
that some oil slipped out through the various cracks and crevices in
the scheme. Pffft. We can't hold the much vaunted UN responsible for
that, can we? We all know that organization has its limitations to be sure.

Let me point one thing out to you my dear Secretary General: it is the UN's fault. You set up the schema, don't expect to weasel out of the blame when the shit hits the fan.

"If the Iraqi government has smuggled oil and done all sorts of
things, I don't think it is fair to lump it all together and blame the
U.N. and the secretariat because there are things that were definitely
beyond our control," he said.
What sort of management system do you use at the UN, Kofi? Are you a
micromanager or are you a hands-off kind of guy? Do you run tight
meetings, where an agenda is laid out and is effectively covered in a
short period of time, or are you one of those managers who just sits
people around a table for a pow-wow that lasts forever? Do you praise
your employees sparingly, or do you really lay it on thick? What sort
of manager are you, Kofi, when you say "I
don't think it is fair to lump it all together and blame the U.N. and
the secretariat because there are things that were definitely beyond
our control," or doesn't the buck stop with you? You didn't have
control over things? What a shocker. You were supposed to be in control
of things. You set up the schema, it was your responsibility to make
sure it was run effectively---even if you delegated---because, ahem,
you're the boss. That's your responsibility.

Annan said "what has been lost" is the aid provided to Iraqis. "Every household was touched."
You're pulling the "I'm sorry for your half million dead because I
couldn't pull my head out of my ass in enough time to help" Rwanda
bullshit again, aren't you? Asshat. You are a sick, sick man, Kofi. A
very sick and awful man. God help you when you get to the afterlife,
Kofi. God should know better than to help you. It's not His
responsibility after all to make sure you get into heaven. He's just
the boss. What does he know about what his employees do? Would someone
please fire this horrific excuse for a man? Would that really be too
much to ask?

Posted by: Kathy at 12:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 675 words, total size 4 kb.

--- Ok, so I'm a wee bit late on this one, but what the hell.

Sullivan sez:
"The anti-gay backlash is in full swing in Iowa..." and then links to
this story. I hate to tell you this Sully, but there never was any
organized sort of movement to push forward gay rights in Iowa to begin
with. Hence, there can't be a backlash against it. This is par for the
course.
I lived there for six years. I know these things. In fact, I was there
for this: Jonathan Wilson was appointed by Democrat Gov. Tom Vilsack to
serve on the board. Wilson served on the school board in Des Moines for
12 years but lost re-election in 1995 after publicly announcing earlier
in the year that he was gay.
This guy represented my neighborhood in the school district. Not like I
voted in the school district elections at that point in my life,
because---honestly---I couldn't have cared less about the school
district. There aren't a goodly number of gay people in Iowa and if
there are it's because they're closeted and I don't know about them. A
pretty homogenous state, is Iowa. There are gays and lesbians, you just
have to know how to identify them. You can take a coastal definiton
like "sensible shoes" and apply it to every woman you meet in Iowa and
pick out who the lesbians are. Everyone---male
or female---wears sensible shoes. You have to look a little deeper, or
maybe you just have to look at what was staring you in the face the
whole time, but you never thought anything of it. You know what I'm
talking about, right? That bachelor uncle who takes a lot of trips to
Chicago. The spinster aunt who lives with "a very good friend." These
are the majority of the gays and lesbians you hear about in Iowa. There
was a big brouhaha about Wilson's sexuality. And everyone was up in
arms about it.
But it wasn't about the fact he was gay. It was that he was open and
honest about it. It was that he was "out" that was the problem.
Conversations went a lot like this, well, I don't personally think there's anything wrong with it, but honestly...
I think you get where I'm going with this. People in Iowa, for the most
part, aren't comfortable with homosexuality. Back in my day there was
one gay bar in Des Moines. "The Blazing Saddle." The place was packed
every weekend. I used to drive by it every day on my way back from my
court runs on the east side of the river. It was a tidy, nondescript
place with the usual neon beer signs in the window and it was about
three blocks away from the cop shop and one block away from City Hall.
Although there weren't any drag shows, it didn't look "scary," either.
But unlike here in the Cities---where no one has any reservations about
going to the Gay 90's for an evening out---no one would have gone there
unless you paid them. Particularly the straight males. It was like this
when the husband and I lived in Des Moines. And it was like that when
we lived in Ames and attended Iowa State. Being gay isn't a scandal.
Being out is. The husband could tell you all about this one: he grew up
there and scandale happened in his smallish town when the pastor of his
family's church came out. Turns out, if I'm remembering correctly, he'd
been having an affair with another man/or it was something like he went
to Iowa City or Cedar Rapids all the time and had "illicit" hookups. I
don't know. I can't really remember. Anyway, the pastor left the
church. He divorced his wife, who subsequently became the minister of
their church. Then
he moved to Des Moines, became a hairdresser became HIV positive and
died as a result. It's pretty apparent that no one would have had a
problem with the pastor's homosexuality if he'd stayed firmly shut in
the closet and kept on living the lie; what was a problem was when he
caused the scandale of the decade by coming out. Remember the Bridges of Madison County?
Same deal. Scandale is a no-no. Discretion's a big thing in Iowa.
Wilson's problem is that he isn't discreet about his homosexuality. But
it's not like the local chapter of the ACLU is going to come running to
his defense. They didn't the last time, if I'm remembering correctly,
because it's completely legal in Iowa to discriminate against someone
for their sexual orientation. The only reason I remember this is
because of my tenure on Government of the Student Body. My senior year,
I was the executive assistant to the Prez/VP and I took the minutes at
the senate meetings, so basically my role was equivalent to
masturbation without the payoff---I was there for hours, but I never
had a say because I wasn't elected to GSB. One night the senate went
round and round for hours
about a resolution supporting---and let me try to remember to get this
straight---equal housing benefits for same sex couples. You see, the
university had married housing. If you were a student and you were
married, you had the option to live in on-campus apartments set up for
married students. Given the fact this was over ten years ago, you're
probably saying Wow. It sounds like they were really ahead of their time!
Well, no, we weren't. It was legal for University---a Land Grant
university, operated with state funding---to follow the course of
action they were already taking. They weren't legally obligated to do
anything about it. It was a complete non-starter that level. And then
you have to take into account this was a non-binding resolution being
offered up in the student senate. A student senate who certainly didn't
have any power to do anything other than allocate the student fees the
administration hadn't already laid claim to. Which student organization
got the biggest share of the student fee pie? you ask. The hockey team.
Because the athletic department wouldn't sponsor them. So, there was
very little point to having this debate in the first place. But have a
debate we did because J.L. (I will never forget that guy) sponsored a
resolution on behalf of the GLBT student group. Man, did the arguments
fly forth that night. And just about every single one of debators began
with well, I don't think there's anything wrong with it, but...
The resolution was eventually voted in, not because people approved of
it, but because the debate had raged for hours and they were tired.
Senate meetings were held once a week and they went until they were
done. I remember the President of the Student Body---my pal
Hammy---being very cheesed about this vote. When it was done, and I was
packing up to go home, he kept asking me if my senators had voted the
way I wanted them to. He was pissed that people just caved and voted
'yes' because they were so tired. I remember telling him to put a sock
in it because I was tired and he needed to walk me home as it was close
to two in the morning. Hammy felt the senate let him down that night.
He wanted a resolution that resolved something; what he got was almost
unanimous consensus because people didn't want to talk about it
anymore. Then again, Hammy was from Chicago. He was ahead of his time;
he was already at the hearts and mind stage of the debate. Iowa, like
every other state, has been dragged into the hearts and minds stage of
this debate because of the controversy surrounding the issue of same
sex marriage and how its been played in the press. Contrary to popular
opinion, they do have CNN in Des Moines. The only problem is that
Iowans value discretion too highly to ever move past their reluctance
to accept gays and lesbians for who they are, and allow them to live
their life in the open without fear or adverse effects. And gays and
lesbians in Iowa, for the most part, value their discretion too highly,
too. I hate to say this, because I don't think anyone should be forced
or pressured to come out of the closet until they want to, but until
Iowan gays and lesbians come out in massive numbers and force people to
see around their prejudices, you will have snarky comments about "the
gay agenda" and perfectly qualified people being discriminated against
because of their sexual orientation.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1452 words, total size 8 kb.