I recently wrote a post in response to an article covering the Whatcom TEA Party. LINK
I observed that Mr Schwartz seemed to be accepting the TEA Party narrative to such a degree that it came across as him accepting the narrative by default.
I concluded my post by saying that I was willing to cut Mr Schwartz some slack, but if he did it again I would call Bravo Sierra.
Well... guess what?
I call Bravo Sierra on Ralph Schwartz.
In a follow up post [LINK} in the Herald's Politics Blog, Mr Schwartz wrote the following gem...
The question we’re left with is, is the U.N. using sustainable development to take over the world, or is it trying to avert an environmental disaster being caused primarily by global warming?
#eyeRoll with a side of #facePalm
Okay... Mr Schwartz... lets clear up a few things first.
You, sir, are not a humorist.
It's not that you aren't funny (don't get me wrong... you aren't funny, but that is a peripheral issue), It's just that you aren't paid by the Herald to bring the funny.
I can appreciate that there are blogs that are written in a humorous tone, and that it is tempting to occasionally emulate that tone. But for that to be effective you have to have established that humor is to be expected from you.
A person of ordinary prudence, particularly someone new to the Herald Politics blog, could be forgiven for thinking you actually are presenting a narrative that of the top two most credible theories of the aims of the UN... one of theories is based on an hypothesis that the UN is attempting to take over the world.
Let me explain how the UN really works, and why it can't take over the world.
I shouldn't have to explain this... but hey... we have the "Liberal Media" (now with Air Quotes!) playing the game of Some Say.
As in...
"While there are people who believe in evolution... Some Say that intelligent design is a better explanation of biology."
Or...
"While there are people who believe the Holocaust was one of the most epic atrocities in human history... Some Say that the Holocaust never happened."
Or...
"While there are people who think that journalists have an obligation to give an accurate account of factual information... Some Say that they should just slap together two wildly different perspectives in a manner that suggests those two perspectives enjoy equal consideration, when actually, one perspective enjoys factual support and the other is something yanked out of a crackpot's ass."
See... that is an application of humor. I know I make it look easy... but the making it look easy thing is actually the... uh... opposite of... uh... easy.
Anywho...
Back to the UN...
Here is a LINK from Fox News about the UN budget...
Overall, Ban’s new budget document shows, the U.N. Secretariat is actually planning on an eye-popping $13.9 billion in “regular” and “extra-budgetary” spending in its 2010 and 2011 budget. That is hike of some $968 million over the spending during the previous two-year period, or a 7.5 percent increase.
I'm going to go ahead and assume that Fox News is accurate, because I am a humorist.
Wow... a two year budget of almost 14 billion dollars...
That is a lot of money... an eye-popping amount of money... unless you aim to take over the world...
 |
| The Sharks-With-Freakin-Laser-Beams Budget alone will eat up most of that 14 Billion... |
So, the notion that the UN has designs on taking over the world collides with the hard economic fact that the UN is grossly under-capitalized to take on such an endeavor.
For example, we... the United States... spent over $600 billion on defense in 2009... LINK...
Bear in mind that the UN is funded by voluntary contributions... you know... like PBS and NPR...
So, the United Nations is going to have to hold a whole lot more pledge drives just to cover the operational expenses associated with taking over the United States... let alone the world entire.
There is also the matter of who the UN can... for lack of a better word... boss around.
The nations that transact business with the UN can be organized into two surprisingly simple categories. The nations that give money to the UN... and the nations that need money from the UN.
And who is the largest single voluntary contributor to the UN budget by far?
(Spoiler Alert... this is a trick question...)
...wait for it...
The United States!
Surprise.
That's right, the USA gives more money to the UN than any other single country in the world. 22 percent of the UN's budget comes from its favorite uncle... Uncle Sam.
Coming in second and third are Japan and Germany... and their contributions combined are less than 22 percent.
The bottom line is that the UN is in no position, and never will be in a position, to dictate terms to the nations upon whose VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS it is dependent for its operational budget.
That is not my opinion. That is The Golden Rule of Economics. "He who has the gold makes the rules."
All of the concern about Agenda 21, and whatever the hell else the UN is doing that is getting people's panties in a bunch, is based on a lack of understanding of... well, it goes beyond just a lack of understanding of how the UN works... but a profound lack of understanding of how the world works.
On to the other supposed aim of the UN, and Agenda 21... stopping the effects of global warming.
Again, $14 billion seems like a lot of money... unless you are trying to reverse global warming. Then, you are looking at a drop in the bucket.
And the UN doesn't have $14 billion to spend on enforcing Agenda 21 (which I will repeat here for emphasis is non-binding... and lacks any enforcement mechanism). Some of that $14 billion that Fox News says the UN is spending is likely to go to non Agenda 21 related stuff like... coffee and Post-it Notes and peace-keeping...
Criticism of the UN is not only legitimate, it is down right healthy. The UN is not powerless by any stretch of the imagination. And any organization that wields power to any degree can abuse that power. However, if you are afraid of the UN taking over the world... you and I need to trade lives so you can remember what a real problem feels like.
If you are worried about a world take-over, forget the UN. There are other, more plausible, threats of world domination out there...
Watch out for those two. I don't trust 'em.
No comments:
Post a Comment