37 Comments

1. ms anne:

so maybe the nytimes was pocketing a few vouchers of its own, purely to help the struggling third world peoples, of course.

Dec 6, 2004 - 7:53 am 2. Catherine:

I remember Arthur Kling writing a column quite a while back (well before John Kerry had the nomination, I believe) saying that a litmus test for him & the Democratic Party was going to be whether the Democratic Party was the Party of the U.S. or the Party of the U.N.

I hope I’m not oversimplifying his point.

At the time, I agreed with him, but felt a pang of guilt for being so negative about the Democratic Party.

But just last week I came across this statistic from Rasmussen (sorry, I didn’t keep the link; it’s probably still posted on the home page):

As for the United Nations, 64% of Bush voters have an unfavorable view of that institution. Twenty-three percent (23%) have a favorable opinion. Among Kerry voters, the numbers on the UN are 68% favorable and 16% unfavorable.

This may be one of the most upsetting statistics I’ve read about the gap between Red and Blue.

I grasp, in a fairly deep way I think, why a Blue Stater could think the Iraq War is a bad idea start to finish.

I don’t grasp, in any way at all, why a Blue Stater would have a favorable impression of the U.N.

Core issues we all agree on–transparency, honesty in business dealings, anti-corruption principles, institutions-charged-with-corruption-don’t-investigate-themselves, the list goes on–have all been extravagantly violated, and no one, including the TIMES, denies it.

Yet we’ve got 68% of Kerry voters positive on the U.N.

Dec 6, 2004 - 8:24 am 3. jerry:

It looks like the NYT will continue to operate on the basis if the Republicans are for something, they will be against it. Since the Republican Congress has found massive corruption in the oil for food program the Times must find an excuse to blame it on the Adminstration.

Dec 6, 2004 - 8:32 am 4. WichitaBoy:

So what is the source of this love of the UN to which Catherine alludes? I don’t propose any theories yet, but I’m curious what everybody thinks.

After all, the UN is a new government which would replace the old government. A new government not subject to the Constitution or any of its institutional guarantees, such as the Bill of Rights. A new government not subject to our long tradition of common law, not subject to democracy, not subject even to basic transparency. A new government which oozes corruption in its very soul, a new government which seems to be the antithesis of everything espoused in the Sixties, of everything the Democratic party purports to stand for.

So why the rush to head over this particular cliff?

Dec 6, 2004 - 8:55 am 5. Caroline:

I will venture to guess its because the Dems welcome U.N. contraint on U.S. power.

Dec 6, 2004 - 8:59 am 6. Skookumchuk:

Catherine

Core issues we all agree on–transparency, honesty in business dealings, anti-corruption principles, institutions-charged-with-corruption-don’t-investigate-themselves, the list goes on–have all been extravagantly violated, and no one, including the TIMES, denies it.

It is just the fervor of the true believer. Look how long it took Catholics to confront the pedophilic behavior of dozens of priests. Decades.

Dec 6, 2004 - 9:06 am 7. Kevin P:

Roger:

The New York Times ignores the story for months then has the nerve to claim that they have all the facts and can assure the Times readers that it is the fault of the US. How do they know, certainly not from their reporters, they haven’t done any reporting on the issue. Then they assure us that the UN is getting to the bottom of the scandal with Volker. Now Paul is a nice man but since he has no supeona power unless the criminals volunteer to confess their crimes he will never get a full picture of the crimes. They cry that we must operate within the confines of the UN and then when the one area that relied on the UN goes badly they say that the UN has no responsibility for it and it is our fault. If that organization is so worthless why does the Times want us to rely on it for our security. Their logic is as worthless as the organization they are defending.

Dec 6, 2004 - 9:36 am 8. ambisinistral:

WichitaBoy,

I believe, stated very simply, that the current theory of the far left is that Nation States are an archaic institution that have lost their usefulness. In fact, they are considered hindrances to progress.

On the macro level they are to be replaced by trans-national institutions like the UN. On the micro level, freed of the burdens of Nationalism, people will condense into smaller ethnic and cultural communities. Hence the interest in Identity Politics and PC.

The utopia envisioned is quilt of small ethinic communities, free to move at will because borders no longer exist, which regulate themselves internally thorugh their own customs, and externally through peaceful appeals to global institutions.

Dec 6, 2004 - 9:47 am 9. PeterArgus:

Kevin P:

You just articulated my first reaction when reading the NYT editorial. They have done absolutely no legwork on the scandal. This seems to be a pattern for them, such as the approach they took to Rathergate (report only inside newsroom gossip, virtually no attempt to independently verify/falsify the memo, or to run down the source(s) of the memo) or the Swiftboat Vet story (confined to drawing supposed connections between Swifties and the RNC).

Catherine:

While most people have US flag decals on the cars these days I have a colleague with a UN decal, Kerry sticker, and an Air America (!) sticker. I am sure the UN decal is there as a comeback to “blind” patriotism. I presume that most of these UN types continue to hold the eutopian view of the EU. They see the “little people” – 3rd world countries – having a say. If he gets his news from Air America and NYT he probably isn’t even aware there is this scandal. And he is satisfied that the Times has shifted the blame to whom it belongs: the US. (Funny little thing about the accusation about the US looking the other way while all this smuggling was going on: it was during the Clinton administration). Even more so, I am sure he is unaware that there are several investigations of UN troops involved in sexually abusing the children of the people they are supposed to protect.

Dec 6, 2004 - 9:58 am 10. Wallace:

The Times article is not surprising. Those who drive on the far left side of life’s highway can’t afford to change their tune now even when it flies in the face of reality….or even sanity.

If they now question the U.N. and it’s moral competency to handle something like an oil for food program, then they might have to question the handling of multiple unfulfilled resolutions to have Saddam comply with WMD dicates handed down by the same organization. All this might lead a more cogent person to start to wonder whether the decision to go into Iraq wasn’t the right thing to do.

Dec 6, 2004 - 10:54 am 11. RogerA:

I think the reasons cited about the NYT peculiar are all operative–I would add one more–please note toward the end of the editorial the NYT once again blames nation-states and not the “secretariat.” Its those nasty old nation-states acting in their own self interest.

The NYT prefers transnational organizations such as the EU and the UN, and would prefer to place our fates in the hands of an unelected, and unaccountable “secretariat.” The only decent Secretariat I remember had four legs and was a triple crown winner. I suspect that if the members of the secretariat were examined in more detail, many more examples of personal mis- and malfeasance would emerge–but, hey–thats just a guess. Can you imagine if a scandal of similar proportions emerged in the Bush administration? The NYT as set the bar for misconduct remarkably close to the ground. Yet another good reason for my continuting boycott of the NYT.

Dec 6, 2004 - 10:54 am 12. Hogarth:

While I’m fascinated at theories along the lines of ‘the Times cannot acknowledge corruption of the organization that opposed the Iraq War because it would be akin to admitting that they were wrong to oppose it themselves,’ I think this is closer to the truth:

As for the United Nations, 64% of Bush voters have an unfavorable view of that institution. Twenty-three percent (23%) have a favorable opinion. Among Kerry voters, the numbers on the UN are 68% favorable and 16% unfavorable.

What all comes down to is catering to their audience. Knowing your customer, as it were. The NY Times knows what sells papers to its core customer base, and they cater to that. They’re in the newspaper business to make money, after all. Not through any alturistic calling or desire to do good. To make money.

FWIW, I also think this is why there will be nothing but a gloss-over at CBS. As Howard Dean, Bill Maher, Jon Stewart and Michael Moore have shown, there is a large enough paying audience for this ‘product’ to make it a lucrative enough market to pursue.

Dec 6, 2004 - 11:31 am 13. chuck:

Hogarth:

What all comes down to is catering to their audience. Knowing your customer, as it were.

What? You mean the NYTimes is an echo chamber? I thought that was a major criticism of blogs. Who would have guessed that the MSM suffered from the same defect.

Dec 6, 2004 - 11:39 am 14. PeterUK:

“the UN is a new government which would replace the old government. A new government not subject to the Constitution or any of its institutional guarantees, such as the Bill of Rights. A new government not subject to our long tradition of common law, not subject to democracy, not subject even to basic transparency”

Sorry to quote a length but the UN was never designed to be any of these things,its Charter is virtually the Constitution of the Soviet Union.

Many of the founders knew that the UN would not function democratically and many were so relieved that a mechanism was being put in place that would prevent another devastating war like the one which had just finished.

Just as the EU was a concept to prevent another WWI the UN was designed to prevent another WWII,both are anachronisms unsuited to deal with the problems of the 21st Century.Both were constructed with more than a whiff of the marxian thinking of the period,both are extremely dangerous.

BTW One of the reasons that Annan is receiving support is that he too kept file.

Canada has noticed,via Instapundit.http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/comment/story.html?id=6e57a820-683c-4853-baaa-3787d7612019

Dec 6, 2004 - 12:05 pm 15. Catherine:

PeterArgus

While most people have US flag decals on the cars these days I have a colleague with a UN decal, Kerry sticker, and an Air America (!) sticker

I love it!

I just drove my brand-new RAV4, adorned with a humungous “Support Our Trips” magnetic decal on the back, to my doctor’s office and parked next to a Honda Odyssey that was plastered with “Let’s not elect George Bush this time, too” and “Friends don’t let friends vote Republican”-type stickers.

After I pulled in, I noticed that the van’s side had also been plastered with stickers: at least 20 different 60s-ish flower decals, including some psychedelic mushrooms.

So I moved my car!

I had the strongest feeling that this particular driver would not favor an I-Support-Our-Troop message, and didn’t see any reason to expose a one-week-old automobile to a possible keying incident.

The RAVs are great, btw. I’ve obviously reached official midlife, because I crave a small car. Both our cars died at the same time, so we now own a new Highlander & a new RAV, and the car we’re fighting over is the RAV.

Back to The War: my son wanted the Troops decal (I was secretly wanting one, too), so I bought it for him Saturday, at Modell’s.

When we got home he found my husband in the foyer and said, “Daddy! Do you like our Support Our Troops! sticker?”

I heard my husband answer glumly, “Yeah.”

He cheered himself up the next day by saying that “Support our troops” could mean, “Bring the troops home.”

This from a guy whose view, last I checked, was that we need more troops, not less.

I suppose we’re watching yet more polarizing: if the Republicans are against it, the Dems are for it, as Jerry says.

I’ve heard liberals make Caroline’s argument, too. One liberal told me the U.N. was originally created to constrain American power.

WichitaBoy LOL.

It’s a cliff too far, that’s what I say.

Skookumchuk—HI!!!! (And ditto to your comment.)

Dec 6, 2004 - 12:50 pm 16. Catherine:

Hogarth

Sorry!

Didn’t see your post.

I tried to post mine before leaving a couple of hours ago, then came back and found it un-posted, so I hit the POST button without reading the rest of the thread . . . and the rest is history.

Dec 6, 2004 - 12:53 pm 17. jerry:

Catherine:

I marvel at your ability to maintain domestic tranquility in a divided household. I too live in a divided household…I am the liberal and my Eastern European wife is the Conservative. Whereas she would simply shoot the terrorists, I want to seperate the ones who have intelligence value and then shoot the remainder.

Dec 6, 2004 - 12:55 pm 18. Bostonian:

Slightly OT: I heard the argument recently that the reason that the press hasn’t covered UNSCUM very much is because of the paucity of information about it.

(And I thought to myself: How many people know at least a little? This was not a small operation by any means! Needless to say, I was not convinced.)

Dec 6, 2004 - 12:57 pm 19. Kevin P:

Roger:

Why the left continues to have faith in the UN when it has shown that it is so ineffective over the last 20 years is a sign that they are more interested in the idea of the UN and a one world government then they are in the reality of how it actually works. Rwanda, Yugoslavia, the Congo, Palestine, Kashmir, Nuclear Proliferation, the Iraq embargos and now oil for food. Failure after failure after failure. We need to get back to a UN that is a place where foreign governments can communicate to each other but to actually task it and give it any responsibilities that require action is insane. The way all these failures were implemented were disasters that were designed to happen from the beginning of each task, not intentionally but out of ignorance and institutional cowardice. It is almost like they watched the movie Ghandi too many times and just assumed that Hollywood solutions can work in a world filled with evil.They are so in love with the principle of non-violence that they can’t see that there refusal to act decisevly invites the violence that they are so afraid of.They have become a institution that is more concerned with self preservation then actually getting anything done.

Dec 6, 2004 - 1:25 pm 20. PeterUK:

Bostonian,

Since this is bigger than Watergate and there is a Pulitzer Prize and a lifetimes ticket on the gravy train in it,why aren’t the MSM all over it like hogs on a slop bucket?

Dec 6, 2004 - 1:36 pm 21. Hogarth:

Catherine:

I lifted that quote from your comment. You weren’t being redundant – I simply failed to attribute correctly!

Dec 6, 2004 - 1:53 pm 22. Bostonian:

PeterUK, that’s what I’m asking.

“Bigger than Watergate” strikes me as an understatement. And Watergate was a very small conspiracy by comparison–far fewer people for reporters to talk to.

I have to believe that by comparison, Oil for Food is target-rich. Yet somehow only Claudia Rossett can dig anything up? (Like I said, the argument I heard about the media silence on this subject was that little information is available for this story.)

***

I read a piece a little while ago that pointed out that Pulitzers tend to be awarded to writers of the liberal variety.

If the Pulitzer does not go to Rossett, it ain’t worth anything.

Dec 6, 2004 - 2:03 pm 23. Knucklehead:

Why does the left give canine-like unconditional love to the UN? Blame it on The Boomers and “Trick or Treat for UNICEF!” The UN is a fantasy fun and games and sacks full of sweets. Clearly they don’t believe in any of the hobgoblins it was supposedly created to control or they’d have a suitable level of fear.

The Pulitzer quest is probably a non-starter. An investigative piece like that by some young, hungry journalist would require the paper they work for to give the go-ahead. The journalist needs the paycheck and the credentials. Without that, no investigative piece. The NYT is not going to fund and lend its name to an investigation of the UN. And when’s the last time anyone saw a detailed investigative piece in the MSM anyway? They’ve lost track of the skill if’n you ask me.

Dec 6, 2004 - 2:27 pm 24. Ben:

Catherine -

In response to your comment, “Core issues we all agree on–transparency, honesty in business dealings, anti-corruption principles, institutions-charged-with-corruption-don’t-investigate-themselves, the list goes on–have all been extravagantly violated, and no one, including the TIMES, denies it.”:

The problem is that we don’t all agree on those core issues. The pro-UN Left could care less about those issues when it comes to the UN, or anything else they favor. They are willing to say they believe in those concepts and to use them against Enron and the rest of corporate America, but they don’t really believe in those concepts as a general rule.

Dec 6, 2004 - 2:32 pm 25. Kevin P:

Roger:

Rossett will not get a Pulitzer because of the target of her investigation. The fact that she was the lone voice in the wilderness and that she ignored the wishes of the MSM to ignore the story is the very reason why she will get no recognition for her fantastic work. The Pulitzers will go to someone who covered Abu Ghraib and Sites for the photo of the marine shooting. The thought that it would go to someone who reported about the corruption in the UN and the secular saint Kofe or to anyone who reported in a positive fashion about the War in Iraq is a non starter. Anti americanism and UN boosterism will carry the day on the Pulitzer awards. The Pulitzers will soon be as relevant as the Nobel Peace prizes.

Dec 6, 2004 - 2:39 pm 26. Duke:

As soon as I saw the usual suspects at the Kofi Annan dinner I knew that the Left was embracing him. The LA Times is even more disgraceful.

Dec 6, 2004 - 2:47 pm 27. Terrye:

Wichit Boy:

Recently Lord David Hannay accused the US of forming a lynch mob for Kofi Annan. Lovely choice of words, doncha think?

The truth is the people who fear nationalism and see in it the threat of out of control love of country are soothed by the smooth talking men in three thousand dollar suits whose job it is to save mankind. Or so they think..

I know such a young woman [a prfessional student on disability] and she thinks the Bush administration is the threat and Kofi represents the world that is beyond all that, so she says. All that being war, pestilence and famine. Blame it on Star Trek.

Dec 6, 2004 - 2:50 pm 28. Terrye:

Duke:

I hear the LA Times is going after Fox. That might turn out to be a mistake.

I think what both the New York and LA Times are forgetting is that if they had covered the story themselves it would not have been left to people like Fox and the WSJ to do it.

Dec 6, 2004 - 2:53 pm 29. PeterUK:

If this is being killed,how many editors and sub-editors does it take and who are they?

Couldn’t Miss Rossett be co-opted by the blogosphere,there is no reason why in years to come a blog prize for investigative journalism should not be as prestigious as a Pulitzer.

Why think small, this IS the Revolution.

Dec 6, 2004 - 3:24 pm 30. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

A major reason that so many liberal intellectuals continue to support the UN–regardless of its actual behavior–is that the UN uses the right *words.* As long as the UN talks about peace, democracy, human rights, economic development, etc etc, it doesn’t matter what they actually *do.*

This is very similar to the reason so many liberal intellectuals supported the Soviet Union and Maoist China.

Dec 6, 2004 - 4:27 pm 31. richard mcenroe:

The NYT knows all about setting up fall guys. When the Jayson Blair scandal first broke, the first Raines and Sulzberger tried to do was pin it on the African-American editor underneath them, when it was Raines pushing Blair along the whole time…

Dec 6, 2004 - 4:52 pm 32. jerry:

Kevin:

You are right. Saul Bellow was ignored for years by the Pulitzer Committee because of his political view. Bellow got his Pulitzer only after the committee was embarrased by his Nobel Prize for Literature.

Dec 6, 2004 - 5:34 pm 33. Caroline:

“As long as the UN talks about peace, democracy, human rights, economic development, etc…”

DEMOCRACY is certainly an operative word here. What are the obstacles to restricting U.N. membership to democratically elected governments? And further to restricting the security council to countries with a minimum track record of democratic elections? Why aren’t there some minimal standards in terms of democracy, human rights and so on for membership? And how could the Dems possibly argue with that? Everyone talks about the need for UN reform. It is an understatement to say that I am ignorant here but isn’t this a goal that both parties could agree upon and work towards? (I will say in advance – do please pardon my naivete!)

Dec 6, 2004 - 5:40 pm 34. Calico Jack:

The major differece between the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal was pointed out above by jerry: the NYT will by default take any position that happens to oppose Bush/GOP. The WSJ, however, does not have this kind of ‘party line’, as illustrated by its weekend editorial warning the GOP on overspending.

Dec 6, 2004 - 6:03 pm 35. Skookumchuk:

Calico Jack:

And that is why we canned our NYT subscription with the tacit acquiescence of the wife – a major tactical victory for me, I tell ya) in favor of the WSJ starting next week.

(I should have picked a moniker like Calico Jack, sort of a SASS type name . . .)

Dec 6, 2004 - 6:23 pm 36. bkochba:

weltanschauung.

Your spellchecker works for the NYTimes.

Dec 6, 2004 - 7:04 pm 37. Nomorelies:

Why does the NYTimes hate America?

Dec 7, 2004 - 7:29 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: