It’s with a certain humility this Grandmother Blogger takes on the mighty L.A. Times. Humility, yes. Great intelligence? No.
For the La Times recent opinion piece on Kofi Annan, Secretariat of the U.N., has so many logic flaws myself, Kaitlyn Mae and one especially smart dog saw right through it.
The Fading of Kofi Annan
…he will be a diminished presence on the global stage. And that's a shame because Annan is hardly the wild-eyed, leftist anti-American that some in Washington make him out to be, and he has some good ideas on how to reform the U.N.
Thus begins an LA Times opinion article on U.N. Secretariat Kofi Annan. Before the next paragraph I am asking myself is there any such thing as just plain bad in the weird world of Los Angeles? Then I ask myself if the LA Times believes there is no other human being on this entire PLANET that could do a better job than Kofi.
Whose son received lots of bucks for doing nothing for the administrator of the Oil for Food program of the mid-nineties, the do-good idea of allowing despot Saddam Hussein sell Iraqi oil so long as the profits were spent for food and medicine for the Iraqi people. Bearing in mind that it was not Saddam’s oil but a resource of the people of Iraq. At any rate, the mighty LA Times would fire an executive in an LA minute who did such an awful job in any facet of their job as did Annan at the U.N.
It seems a waste of time for the newspaper to defend this man, good God, there are other human beings on this planet. The world will not collapse if he is fired as he should be.
If the LA Times doesn’t want to admit that the urbane, well-spoken and mannerly Mr. Annan (which is what the paper means with that “wild-eyed leftist” thing) did a lousy job the paper could at least give an inch, shrug its inked shoulders and allow as there’s enough questionable tactics all about the U.N. with Kofi at the helm that maybe we should just see if there’s anyone else on the planet who could do the job. In the very same opinion the LA Times acknowledges that the U.N. oil for food program was “disastrously mismanaged”.
But ahhh, would we find someone so scholarly, soft-spoken and so willing to carry the water of liberals and terrorists?
Oh and about those “good ideas on how to reform the U.N.” the LA Times refers to in this first paragraph, I must ask the mighty west coast times if acknowledging that a)U.N. peacekeepers should not be raping those they were sent to protect b)that money allocated to feed and medicate a people from profits derived by their own natural resources should not go in my son’s pocket and c)the U.N. needs more money, are those good ideas, how is this genius?
Conservative Republicans are gleeful about Annan's travails, as if he is to blame for the Bush administration's failure to sell the Iraq war to nations like France and Russia. Annan's critics should be more careful what they wish for. If the secretary-general is their idea of a crazed anti-American, they need to get out more.
Goodness, that bit about Kofi being to blame for “Bush administration's failure to sell the Iraq war to nations like France and Russia”, where did this come from? Such good journalism, just sticking in a mini-editorial that has nothing to do with the main editorial and get two wrong opinions out to the reader at one time.
Such a thought might never occur to the LA Times editorialists but the so-called “Republicans” that are so gleeful about Kofi’s travails might not approve of his poor performance. I daresay that most normal people would consider Kofi’s handling of the U.N.’s oil for food abominable. It’s not glee. It’s relief at finally having proof. There’s something very logical about firing someone who’s done a terrible job; about wanting a world organization to function as it should; about clearing out the poor performers to gain this end. Does the LA Times think this might be the case?
Would the LA Times hang onto an executive who suddenly has some good ideas for reform all glommed from the very things the executive is being fired for? I’m thinking not.
Annan is concerned about human rights, and he is no markets-hating socialist. He supports the notion of humanitarian interventions, and wants to overhaul the U.N. Human Rights Commission so that it can no longer be dominated by countries with little regard for human rights.
I’m dumbfounded.
Annan is “concerned” about human rights? He supports the “notion” of humanitarian interventions? He wants to fill the so-called Human Rights Commission with non-terrorists?
Mr. Opinion writer, LA Times, please! The U.N. Secretariat should be totally dedicated to human rights. It’s in the job description; it’s what the U.N. does! He should stop supporting notions and start making action. The U.N.’s response to the Boxer Day Tsunami was terrible. Far more people would have died had not a small coalition of nations reacted immediately to bring aid to the victims. This while the U.N. called press conferences and carped about possible diseases and mass deaths to come AFTER the initial tsunami effect. Something that didn’t happen. Why? Because of that small coalition of nations that reacted so quickly.
How long has Kofi been around? None of these brilliant ideas could have been brought to fruition? Why that oil for food scam would still be ongoing had not the U.S. decided to go around the U.N.
Why, I ask the intelligentsia at the LA Times, just a humble Grandma Blogger here, should we keep this man at the helm of the U.N.?
Is he the only one on the planet that can do the job?
Barbarella Writes a New Book
Jane Fonda is a woman needing a good dump in the ash heap of history.
She is the daughter of Henry Fonda, who COULD act.
More than anything, and the demon that keeps stalking her, Fonda will never outlive Americans' long memories of how she acted during the Vietnam War.
And moi, yon ladies and gems, was a flaming liberal during that era.
Even I, marcher for peace, carrier of candles in the rain, singer of "Eve of Destruction", abhorred Jane Fonda.
Of course back in Grandmother's era liberals did have some good causes and a certain fairness about them. Black citizens were discriminated against, women really did make less money than men while doing the same job and a war was waged in a distant and steamy land for reasons no one quite understood.
Jane Fonda was not fair. Her tirades and mistreatment of our troops was totally out of line and they were inappropriate targets of any discontent with the war. As a result of her tactics, many American troops were spit at and mistreated upon return home.
Such a thing would never happen today. And methinks sweet Jane is desperately trying to re-cloak her image in a shroud of regret.
Mealsothinks she is not sincere.
About her picture yukking it up with the North Vietnamese enemy, Fonda says:
I will go to my grave regretting that. The image of Jane Fonda, 'Barbarella,' Henry Fonda's daughter, just a woman sitting on an enemy aircraft gun was a betrayal. It was like I was thumbing my nose at the military and at the country that gave me privilege.
It was “LIKE” she was thumbing her nose? Jane, dear, you WERE thumbing your nose at our military AND the country that gave you privilege.
Why does this woman never quite acknowledge her publicity stunts of yore? All in such bad taste and all deplorable? There’s always her cute little caveat; a coy holding back of an outright admission of wrong.
Jane Fonda will continue to write her books and on some level they will sell. At some point in time readers who want to read fiction will stick with fiction. Thus passing by her publicity-seeking books.
Because it all gets old sometimes, Janie girl.
Regarding Book Review for"By Two By Two"
Comments: Interesting review- one of the books about a murder in Pennsylvania was written by a Philadelphia Inquirer reporter clearly smitten by the defendant and anxious to establish his innocence (I\'m blanking on all the names- another book about the same case was written by Joseph Wambaugh)- It was interesting to see the different points of view, the differing evidence presented,and the different interpretations and weights given to the factors of the crime. I\'ve also read three books on the Thomas Caputo case, and while none of them defended the murderer, the portrait of the victim varied widely.
Ummmmm, in my experience, a novel is a work of fiction; so looking for a novel at the library might not help you- Or was this a Freudian slip showing your inner opinion of this book. ConnieM
~~~~~~~~~~~
American Idol Counts Down to Winner
…and folks have some thoughts.
Comments: OH no! I didn\'t mean to \"berate\" you! I\'m sorry if it came across that way. It\'s just that any \"gangsta rap\" that I\'ve ever heard is just horrible stuff with an expletive every other word...it just wasn\'t anywhere near what Nikko\'s been doing. I think you have it this week--more of a jazzy, bluesy, soul kinda sound.
Scott Savol will probably go this week, due in part to his bad press and in part to the fact that he\'s completely out of his league vocally.
I\'m watching Nikko again this week and Vonzell, who gets better and better. Still love Nadia. Constantine is actually growing on me, but if he doesn\'t stop making mooney eyes at the camera all the time I may throw up.
=====
Let me do this over. First of all I dont think you know anything about \"GANGSTA RAP\" because if you did you would know that \"ANWAR\" could by no means be deplicted as gangsta rap. SHOULD BO BICE AND CONSTATINE CUT THEIR HAIR FOR REPPING \"ROCK\"? ARE IS THAT OKAY. As far as with the dreads not being a racial thing cause \'WHITE CELEBRITIES\" WEAR THEM. WHAT IS ANY MORE FAKE THAN THAT, AT LEAST IF ANWARS DREADS ARE FAKE AT LEAST ITS HIS CULTURE. WILL PEOPLE EVER LOOK PASS THE \"SKIN WE ARE IN\"? HERES MY LINE UP AS FAR AS TALENT GOES. BEST SINGER FIRST ANWAR, SCOTT, NIKKO, BO BICE, VONZEL, CONSTANTINE. I HOPE NIKKO WINS IT ALL CAUSE HES GOT THE COOLEST LOOK IF HE DONT WIN I HOPE IT IS BO BICE. THESE TWO GUYS GOT A LOT OF HEART. I WISH THEM ALL THE BEST OF SUCCESS
~~~~~~~~~~
And the Trump’s The Apprentice Winds Down as Well
Comments: I\'m confused -- perhaps because I don\'t watch the show, but it\'s your post that has me confused. Are you saying that she *should* or *should not* have delivered pizzas to the workers? Was it a question of timing, or of doing it at all, or what?
ED Reply-I think that Stephanie should NOT have taken an hour to deliver a pizza clear across town under the circumstances for which the team was working. She was right in that customer satisfaction is important but in the case of the pizza episode, given a short time span and the fact that she WAS team leader, she should have chose to stay with your team. It’s about priorities. Stephanie had a noble notion but being able to set priorities is as important in business as keeping a few customers happy.
No comments:
Post a Comment