In Which I Condemned Too Soon. Perhaps.
Yesterday morning I posted:
Here We Go Again
Which inspired the following verse:
Ban Ki-Moony is a loony,
Doesn't know the Shia hate the Sunni.
That the West is the object of Islamofascist hate,
And Islamists want to return to the Caliphate.
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
The UN stinks,
What else is new.
Rwanda, Somalia, Mogadishu?
Nah - it's always the Joos, the Joos, THE JOOS.
****************************************
This morning, however, I came across another comment by Moon which I thought was gutsy, on-target, and best of all, a fine and dandy break from his predecessor:
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said Tuesday that Iraq and other countries have the right to impose the death penalty, adding that the world should never forget Saddam Hussein's "heinous crimes."
Ban's first public reaction to Hussein's execution signaled a sharp break from his predecessor, Kofi Annan, an ardent death-penalty critic who opposed U.N. participation in the Iraqi war crimes tribunal that sentenced Hussein to die. Human rights advocates expressed concern that Ban's comments lend credibility to what they see as a flawed trial of the former Iraqi leader, and complained that he could set back efforts to abolish the death penalty.
It occurs to me now that I may have jumped the gun by calling him a looney so soon. I still think his statement that all the problems of the Middle East revolve around the Israel/Palestinian issue was a particularly off-base way to begin his job, however.
We shall be watching Mr. Moon very carefully.
"The General Assembly recently approved $4.9 million to modernize the residence's heating, air conditioning, plumbing, kitchen and security, which is expected to take about nine months."
WTF??? I could build him a ten-room mansion in SF forthat kind of money.
And may I be the first to say "nebbish"?
Posted by: Mark | January 03, 2007 at 11:48 PM
"WTF??? I could build him a ten-room mansion in SF forthat kind of money."
Hah. I skipped right over that. Thanks for pointing it out, Mark. $4.9 million does sound excessive. Why does the head of the UN need such a fancy place? Surely $1-1.5 million would have been enough to update the kitchen, baths, heating/AC, furnishings and bought a brand new security system as well. They could have used the rest of the money to help starving kids around the world.
Posted by: Gail | January 04, 2007 at 07:25 AM
The sort of security needed by the head of the United Nations probably isn't some wireless motion sensor (X10 Motion sensor - $22.99 at Home Depot). One contractor quoted in the Daily News pointed out that the elevetor work alone could "start at $400,000." The building has had no major work since 1951... Mark's point is on-point, in that it makes more sense to tear down, and build a modern, energy efficient building.
I don't know New York...but in San Francisco, you CAN'T get permits to tear down most old buildings, you have to fix them. Victorians, you know. They can't be touched.
Posted by: draftervoi | January 04, 2007 at 10:52 AM
When they said "the residence," I pictured a house rather than a building and didn't think in terms of an elevator. And yes, you are right about security being more involved.
I am aware of the costs involved in upscale remodeling. Still sounds like a lot of $$ to me.
I'll bet it will be quite grand.
I'd be more willing to be supportive of it if I approved of more of what the UN does. Maybe Ki-moon will deserving. We shall see. I sure as hell wouldn't have wanted to see Kofi Annan living in a NYC Taj Mahal.
Posted by: Gail | January 04, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Kofi has a rent controlled apartment. His family has used it for the past 10 or so years while he enjoyed the official UN residence. The good citizens of NYC thru their rent control measures (enacted during WWII and never rescinded)have promoted a subsidy to the Annan family.
Don't ask him about the Mercedes...
Posted by: AndyJ | January 04, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Crooked AND incompetant. A very BAD combination.
Posted by: Gail | January 04, 2007 at 01:54 PM
"I pictured a house rather than a building..."
Ah, that's the nature of Blogoworld: shoot first, ask questions later. My brother HATES the new Beatles CD. He hasn't heard it, but he's heard that they reworked tracks into a mashup, and therefore he hates it. Response first! Facts later!
I acknowledge that institutional corruption makes me IMMEDIATELY SUSPICIOUS when I see a $4.9 million price tag on rehabbing a house... but a fair assessment means we really need more information as to what they're doing. "They will spend $650,000 on a new security system and another $100,000 to renovate two small bathrooms in the entryway."
I can't judge the security system...but $50K per pissoir seems pricey.
Posted by: DRaftervoi | January 04, 2007 at 02:18 PM
This entire post was about cautioning myself against jumping the gun. Where the UN is concerned it is very difficult for me not to jump all over them for anything and everything. And you know, part of me thinks the institution deserves it, even if the jumping isn't backed by fact in this particular case. I'd like to see the UN administration be a little more afraid of public opinion and public scrutiny. They handle not only millions of dollars, but the head honcho makes public statements which add fuel to the media bias fire against Israel.
I strongly dislike the idea of UN pseudo-world government. No, we don't HAVE to listen to what they say, but they have the imprimatur of the "United Nations" name sacntifying their every word. And we are in the position of having to win the battle of public opinion as well as our battles on the ground. What they say affects us!
I don't like the backdoor espionagist interplay of countries voting against the US just to spite us, or casting votes to curry favor with others.
It's an infected set up and it smells rotten to me.
Posted by: Gail | January 04, 2007 at 02:58 PM
Where the UN is concerned "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" would be the best course. They do not have a good track record and cannot be trusted to act with honor, courage, integrity or consistency.
Claudia Rosett has done a wonderful job of following the UN trail... (http://claudiarosett.pajamasmedia.com/) There are others but they are not as consistently skeptical and diligent.
The UN is bad, but would we be better off with out it? We have high expectations. Are they too high? Should we not accept humans as corrupt, cowardly, liars and be surprised when they are not vs our present expectations.?
Posted by: AndyJ | January 04, 2007 at 05:05 PM
Yup, I caught your drift, dropped in a quick Google and came up with a femto-factoid (a word I just coined...) about the elevator. Fair is fair, and I like to check out facts that contradict my a priori convictions. They usually lead me to learn about things I don't know about...later today, I'll find out the address of this U.N. dump and run it through Zillow to check out the comps.
Come to think of it, my cugine Billy just opened a branch of his HVAC company right off the Madison Avenue Bridge in the Bronx, maybe we can hook him up with this Moon and do a little business, eh?
Posted by: DRaftervoi | January 04, 2007 at 05:06 PM
Andy: Yes, you and I are on the same page here - guilty until proven innocent - exactly.
Better off without the UN? Maybe. I like the idea of world leaders getting together to discuss issues. I like the thought of countries working together to accomplish joint goals - ending hunger, improving education and medical care, Providing rescue after natural disasters, etc.
But when it comes to censoring Israel for protecting herself when human rights abuses are occurring all over the world about which they do nothing, and when it comes to poking their multi-culti "we are the world" noses into US attempts to increase our, and by extension the rest of the free world's security, well, I wish they'd just stick to collecting pennies for UNICEF.
Draftervoi: "I like to check out facts that contradict my a priori convictions"
Which is why you know so much more than I do. In my next life, I will remember to be more curious. Please report back if you find anything interesting.
Posted by: Gail | January 04, 2007 at 05:50 PM
As a contractor in the SF Bay Area I readily admit that a ten-room mansion for that price was an exaggeration.
Still, I am not convinced that that amount of monry is required for the work explained.
As for the contractor that said the elevator work could start at $400,000?
I forgot that we are talking about NYC, where you must hire Guido and his eight brothers to provide jobsite "security".
I probably spoke too hastily forgetting about the corruption of NY unions as well as the UN.
Posted by: Mark | January 05, 2007 at 12:01 AM
Well, the address I found puts this dump at 3 Sutton Place, which has a waterfront view of the East River. Zillow didn't show a "3," but comps for the block run between $5,030,000 to $15,100,000. So, if they're gutting the place and doing a total rebuild, the 6 mil isn't absurd, just very expensive.
How much does an elevator cost, anyway? They'd need five stories, including the basement, and this ain't some old-lady escalator, it'd have to be industrial strength to move fat bureaucrats and their, uh, escorts.
Posted by: DRaftervoi | January 05, 2007 at 10:24 AM
Why do they need such a big residence? Why can't they throw their diplomatic parties at the UN building and live in a place that doesn't require an elevator?
Posted by: Gail | January 05, 2007 at 11:04 AM
I'm not so sure it's big.
Check this out: http://www.nyc-architecture.com/MID/MID007.htm
Scroll down to where it says "SUTTON PLACE: ANNE MORGAN'S TOWN HOUSE." That's the joint...it looks about fifteen feet wide.
Posted by: DRaftervoi | January 05, 2007 at 11:18 AM
"What is now Sutton Place was once verdant land populated by Reekgawawanck Indians."
Oh my God. They stole it from the Indians!
THE UN RESIDENCE IS ON OCCUPIED LAND!
Posted by: Gail | January 05, 2007 at 01:53 PM
The Dutch paid off the Canarsie, who sold 'em Manhattan, the Dutch gave it to the British, and we took it from the British, and some private citizen donated it to the U.N.
But hey, let's move 'em to a place without such a problem. There's your assignment for the day, Gail: Can you think of a fairly populated area with at least one major city, where there are no prior inhabitants who could come along later and claim that the U.N. is sitting on occupied territory?
Posted by: DRaftervoi | January 06, 2007 at 04:08 AM
No, not anymore than I could come up with a place where 5 million Israelis could move to where they'd be welcomed with open arms.
By the way, Mark linked here, and a mouth foaming antisemite commented on his site on this issue.
Posted by: Gail | January 06, 2007 at 08:45 AM
Gail - Thanks for the linklove. I just posted a new one about my AS troll.
It seems he likes to frequent white supremacist websites where he paid me the ultimate compliment!
Posted by: Mark | January 06, 2007 at 08:08 PM