The U.N. way

I was sick on Monday, so I got to stay home from school and catch up on Sesame Street watching with my daughter.

My fever-soaked brain refused to believe what I saw but I found proof:



That's right Kofi Annan brings that "compromise is best" attitude to Sesame Street. And it's supposedly a good thing!

The gist of the segment was this:

Elmo was arguing with another character about who gets to sing the alphabet song. Historically Elmo always sang the song, but now the other characters are muscling in, wanting a piece of this rich singing pie...

In walks Mr. Annan and dictates that they should solve the problem the "U.N. way" and mandates that they should all sing the alphabet song together- no auditions to see who was the best singer, no digging in to the history of the situation, no exclusion of AWFUL performers - just a compromise solution that rewards the slackers in the group and punishes those that have worked hard and are actually better than average.

---

So by now you're saying that I've gone off the deep-end. It's just Sesame Street for Pete's sake! Remember though that Sesame Street has cultural icon status in North America. There's probably not one person in their 30's who grew up in North America who hasn't watched it as a child. The "teachings" are lauded by educators everywhere as crucial to forming early child abilities and attitudes. So by espousing "the U.N. way" they are promoting an agenda.

---

So what's my beef?

I hate compromises. They only work best when there is no optimal solution and you need to move forward with all parties agreeing. They shouldn't be used as your default starting point and catch-all solution.

Many people are just plain wrong. Without vigorous debate and the occasional shoving match the wrongness of some positions wouldn't get exposed. And the right solutions get diluted by crap.

Specific example: In Toronto there was a plan in the 60's for an expressway that would connect the 401 and the Gardiner Expressway along Spadina Avenue. If you've ever been caught in a Toronto rush-hour, an alternate North-south route would come in handy.

It doesn't exist. Because it was an all or nothing proposition. The debaters in favour of their neighbourhoods won and the expressway didn't happen.

The "U.N. Way" would've compromised and created an expensive half-assed expressway that went nowhere and caused more problems than it solved.

But that's bad for the commuters right? Too bad. They lost the debate. Deal with it. There was no optimal solution for everyone and a compromise would've been worse for everyone.

---

So what's the lesson here re: "the U.N. way?"

• If you're better at something, it doesn't matter. You'll have to carry the shittier performers


• If you're not that good at something, scream loud enough to be included. Instead of trying to get better, those that are better will carry you


• The best solution doesn't matter as long as no one's "wittle feewings" aren't hurt

I could write a lot more on why I think the U.N. has become a modern League of Nations, but I'll be brief.

The U.N. seems to want to punish the successful countries for being successful, because their mindset is that in order to be successful, they must have unfairly "stolen" this success from the sweat of the third-world.

Before the leftist history majors come out of the woodwork: this is not TOTALLY wrong, but has become a crutch every time the shortcomings of the third world are pointed out. The fact that these regimes punish innovation with prohibitive taxes, have no property or individual rights and are rife with corruption never seem to enter the argument as to why they are basket cases...

What I wish they would do is help the "loser" countries (c'mon, we all know they're losers...) do better rather than lay blame and guilt at the feet of the richer countries.

But that would require saying bad things about the weak wittle countwies wouldn't it?