scandal archive at Haemet

Maybe it is just my pathetic, college-aged sense of humor, but does any one else find it funny that the new UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon is being called a tool?

(If I were capable of photoshopping, trust me, I would.)

Every so often, I take a glance at the Christian Science Monitor. It is usually a decent source with minimal signs of bias, if any. (At least it was a couple years ago when I was a more frequent reader.) Anyway, this headline caught my eye earlier this morning: “Early accolades for UN’s new chief - with caveats”

It is a pretty interesting article, especially because I don’t feel like we have been hearing much about Mr. Moon in the MSM and/or popular blogs. Maybe, that could be because he isn’t involved in any steamy - or should I say oily? - scandals… yet. And so far, his family is on the up and up (no taxpayer funded apartments for the brother, that we know of).

So, is it possible that conservatives, from the Heritage Foundation of all places, could be optimistic about the new secretary-general? Apparently, it is:

When spending and accounting questions arose recently about the United Nations Development Program in North Korea, new UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon wasted little time moving into damage-control mode.

After all, he was fully aware of the toll that the Iraq oil-for-food scandal had taken on both the UN and his predecessor, Kofi Annan.

And so Mr. Ban summoned a top UNDP administrator, organized media access to some of the program’s senior staff, and issued a statement calling for “an urgent, system-wide and external inquiry” into the financial activities of all UN programs.

That quick action within the first month of his arrival on the job has won Ban some early accolades – including from some quarters among US conservatives that are never prone to kind words about the UN.

“Just by promising an investigation into the UNDP scandal, he sets a different tone, and that is very refreshing after the secrecy that cloaked the institution in the Kofi Annan years,” says Nile Gardiner, a UN expert and frequent critic at the Heritage Foundation in Washington.

True fact. If the UN wants to see any continued support from the US - (and I’m still for abolishing the UN no matter how nice the chief is) - they had better be changing it up a bit.

Now, for my favorite part of this article: the “caveat” mentioned in the headline. It would seem that not everyone is pleased with the way the new secretary general is handling himself.

Yet even as he wins some initial praise, Ban is also raising some questions with his first appointments, while leading others to wonder if he isn’t coming off as too much of a big-powers secretary-general. Ban, they worry, is showing signs of paying deference to a time-honored system that divvies up key posts among the powers that formed the UN system six decades ago – the US, Britain, and France in particular.

Oh, no! The U.N. is divvying up the best positions between the countries that actually pay the most money to the U.N.? What is the world coming to? I don’t know how France still gets in on the spoils system, to be honest. But whatever. If it makes the “others” angry, it can’t be that bad. And who are those “others” that are wondering?

“So far, there’s been some of the same division of senior posts on the traditional great-power spoils system that we’ve seen in the past,” says Michael Doyle, a former senior UN official now at Columbia University in New York.

Boy, if that don’t beat all. A former senior UN official gone Columbia professor. I’ll bet his parents are proud. But seriously, this is a former minion of Kofi complaining about the administration that replaced his boss. It was one thing when the spoils system favored the non-traditional great powers like Saddam and little Kojo… but anything that benefits the US has got to stop.

The entire article is worth reading - there is one really cute poem/song that Ban Ki Moon made up, haha. But, back to my opening question. In all fairness, it appears that the critics are calling the UN, not Ban Ki Moon, a tool… but it is really all the same.

Now out of the running for the humanitarian post, the US is seeking the top political-affairs post – a possibility that some UN experts say could actually run counter to US interests by making the UN look too much like a tool of American diplomacy.

Oh, come on. Could the UN really run any more counter to US interests? Especially if the US controlled the top political-affairs post?

Closing comments: Gimme a break. The day the UN becomes a “tool” of American diplomacy will be the day Ann Coulter is elected President of the US. Both great daydreams, but completely unrealistic.

I’ve been following this story on Hot Air and MSNBC on and off. It’s disgusting. Pathetic. Despicable. Inexcusable. I could go on for a while.

Besides the fact that a “Congressional Page Program” just sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen - who in their right mind pairs up young teens with corrupted old men? - the politicizing of this whole story is really starting to annoy me. I mean, it really shouldn’t matter whether or not this guy is a Republican or a Democrat. But obviously, it does matter.

The Democrats would be crazy to let this election leverage pass them by. And, since they have chosen to take the road of making it a political issue instead of a moral issue - because they have no morals, that would probably not work out so well for them - I have no choice but to take a brief step down to their level and stroll down memory lane. Well, not my memory… I wasn’t around back in 1983.

This stuck out to me in the MSNBC article:

In 1983, the House censured two lawmakers — Daniel Crane of Illinois and Gerry Studds of Massachusetts — for having improper relationships with pages.

When I read that little blip, I thought to myself, “Now who are these lawmakers and why are we not hearing more about what happened to them?”

Now, I’ll admit straight out that my main source here is Stupidpedia, but their information seems to match everything else I find on Google. I also LexisNexised (can I make that a verb?) both Crane and Studds, but found very little. Not sure if those links will work since I only have access through Cornell. Both articles are admittedly sparse, hence the reliance on Stupidpedia. If anyone can find more accurate sources or more detailed information, let me know. I really am curious, but I can’t devote too much time to this with 2 papers and a midterm looming on my horizon.

So here are the links for Wikipedia’s articles on Crane and Studds. Read through them. Note the similarities and pay close attention to the differences. (Wow, did I just sound like my govt prof or what?) Both pervs admitted to being guilty and the House punished both of them… sort of. It is unfortunate that neither stepped down from their positions. I give Rep. Foley some credit for at least knowing when to call it quits. One of the Lexis articles brings up the difference in media, and I think that probably does have a lot to do with it. Maybe Foley would not have stepped down in 1983 when there were only three news networks and they were all pretty incompetent, but that’s irrelevant.

After the House Ethics Committee decided to censure them both, Crane (the Republican)

“plead guilty to the charge and issued profuse, tearful apologies“

while Studds (the Democrat)

“turned his back and ignored them. Later, at a press conference with the former page standing beside him, the two stated that what had happened between them was nobody’s business but their own.“

Inexplicably, both Crane and Studds then ran for re-election (stupid on so many levels). Crane lost to a Democrat and what do you know, Studds continued to serve his district for another five terms.

Now, all three of these men are perverted freaks that ought to be castrated. (That’s my no-nonsense stance on issues of perversion.) But I can’t get over that one interesting twist. Did anyone notice that the two Republicans are the ones who were condemned by their national party? (Although Crane did win his local primary before losing in the general.) They are out. Foley may get a heck of a book deal, but he won’t be getting any more checks from the good ole’ U.S. The only winner here was Studds. He came out as a gay perv, unashamed of having sex with a minor, and like a pat on the back got re-elected five more times by the Democrats.

Give me a break. Like I said before, ultimately the party does not matter to me. I think they are all losers. But, since the Democrats are making this out to be yet another example of Republican corruption, why is no one bringing up Studds?