UNSCAM UPDATE:

Many U.N. employees fear reprisals from their bosses if they step forward with information on the Iraq oil-for-food scandal or report other allegations of corruption, according to a shocking internal survey released yesterday.

A recent poll of 6,086 employees and managers released on the U.N. Web site revealed that the staff has little faith in the world body leadership's commitment to ethics and integrity and that most believe that when allegations of wrongdoing surface, they are not properly handled.

The survey, conducted by an outside consulting firm for the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight, also revealed that a large plurality of the staffers feel unprotected from reprisals for reporting violations because the United Nations does not have strong enough whistleblower protection and is run by an "old-boys network."

[Via Instapundit.com]

It is probably taking all of the power of the presidency to keep the UN scandal from unraveling before the Iraqi government change over. Once the Iraqi government gets on its feet, I think the dam will break and the accusations of corruption and bribery will begin in earnest. I would not be surprised if Bush is re-elected that Congress will require UN reform before they will authorize funding. I am guessing that Congress will feel less bold and sure they of themselves if Kerry is elected.

Social security – whose fault?

When Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1. That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
2. That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,
3. That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income tax each year,
4. That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,
5. That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month — and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate.

---

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

---

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.

---

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A: That’s right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this county, and at age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it! Then the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it!

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during this 2004 election year!

[Via The Braden Files]

Is hockey finished as a big league sport?. A columnist for Nashville’s Tennessean paper says that the end of the Stanley Cup tourney may mark the end of the NHL as a major pro sport.

An NHL lockout is imminent, the sides incredibly far apart on the fundamental issues.That’s just the financial end of it.

The league, led by blindfolded commissioner Gary Bettman, barely acknowledges the problems with the game. Because the high-ranking guys don’t like to be on the hook for altering the status quo, and because they fear tinkering with anything that might upset the Canadian hockey fanatic or the Original Six, they can’t see it’s more than finances that are killing the game:

The low scoring, the lack of personalities, the monstrous influx of players from outside North America, the overly long schedule, the drawn-out playoffs.

And the Stanley Cup was a ho-hummer for most of America. ABC Sports reported that, “the average rating for the five Stanley Cup final games on ABC were the lowest since the network began broadcasting the finals again in 2000.” [One Hand Clapping]

I watched several of the Stanley Cup games this year including the last two games. My son plays hockey but neither of us are avid fans. Despite the ratings I enjoyed the games. So here’s my rebuttal to the comment:

1. Low scoring is a result of great defense and is a successful strategy to win games in football, basketball, and hockey. If you want to watch some guys passionate about winning the greatest hockey prize, watch a Stanley Cup game. If you want to see high scoring and all of the popular players, go watch the all star game.
2. The lack of personalities is a result of the youth of both teams and the parity in the league. In the next couple of years several players will be known for what they did or did not do in the 2004 Stanley Cup. They become the personalities of tommorrow.
3. I have heard all of the rest of the complaints before. I have heard it for baseball, basketball, football, etc. It typically occurs at the end of the season. By the time the next season starts, everything is new and exciting again.