So, all around the world, Muslims are burning things and killing people because of some cartoons. Enter the U.N., that bastion of strength, integrity and effectiveness. In response to the mayhem, the U.N. called a meeting — at the Ritz-Carlton (natch) in Doha, Qatar.

There was much serious and high-minded discussion. Annan pled for calm. And nothing happened. Indeed, Annan couldn’t even bring himself to condemn the violence. Here’s his take:

It is important that we realise that the problem is not with the faith, but with a small group of the faithful — the extremists who tend to abuse and misinterpret the faith to support their cause, whether they derive it from the (Holy) Qur’an, the Torah or the Gospel.

Sounds almost sympathetic, doesn’t it?

Unfortunately, we’ve seen all too often that the U.N. in general, and Kofi Annan in particular, are no friend of freedom. Indeed, Annan seems more a friend to scandal, nepotism and corruption.

So it’s sad that it’s come to this, but the cartoon violence has exposed, yet again, the utter impotence of the U.N. and its leaders.

Jim: Marshall, I think “impotence” is too kind — it suggests helplessness or pointlessness. But all too often, the U.N. makes things worse. Just looking at Annan’s comments, he finds new ways to sink beneath the low expectations, suggesting that the problem of those who abuse and misinterpret the Bible or Torah is as common as those who abuse and misinterpret the Koran. I’m surprised he didn’t mention those militant, violent Buddhists.

I’m reminded of one of my favorite columns, by Dennis Prager - a brave work because you rarely see such philosophical darkness on the op ed pages.

I have contempt for “the world.” I cherish and admire countless individuals, but I have contempt for “the world” and “world opinion.” “The world” has never cared about evils inflicted on human beings. The Communist genocides meant nothing to humanity. The Holocaust meant nothing. With almost no exception, the mass atrocities since World War II have likewise absorbed humanity less than the Olympics or the Miss World Contest. I have contempt for the United Nations. It is one of the great obstacles to goodness and decency on this planet. Its moral record — outside of a few specialized agencies such as the World Health Organization — is almost entirely supportive of evil and condemnatory of good. It is dominated by the most morally backward governments in the world — those from the Arab and Muslim worlds, the Communists during their heyday and African despots. It appointed Libya, a despotic, primitive state, to head its Human Rights Commission, whose members include China, Saudi Arabia and Sudan. Neither the United States nor Israel sits on the Commission. I regard the European Union with similar revulsion…

In the last years of the Saddam Hussein regime, according to John Burns of the New York Times, major news reporters refused to write stories about Iraqi mass murder and atrocities lest the Saddam regime remove their press credentials. For most journalists, and their newspapers and television stations, it was better to lie for Saddam and have a bureau in Baghdad than to tell the truth but have no Baghdad bureau.

And not one international news organization calls Hamas or any of the other Palestinian terror organizations “terrorists.”

I love learning and revere the title of “professor,” but with few exceptions, universities, too, merit contempt. The vast majority of professors who take positions on social issues are moral fools. They teach millions of students that America and Israel are villains and that the enemies of those decent societies are merely misunderstood victims who are often justified in their hatred. And they loathe the American Judeo-Christian value system that has made the United States the world’s land of opportunity and beacon of liberty.

In sum, I feel that I am living in a world that is morally sick. Good is called bad, and bad is called “militant,” “victimized,” “misunderstood” and “the product of hopelessness,” but rarely bad. Only those who fight the bad are called bad.

This fits in well with the gloom-a-palooza I’m throwing at TKS. But really, when we are all old men - er, older (Lady in Red and Unattainable will remain forever young) - and the history of this age is written, we will look back on an age of great evil (mass murdering terrorists) and great good (those who sought to stop them). I hope future generations are stunned by the number of people and organizations who lined up to oppose the good and defend the evil, including those within the United Nations.

At its heart, the United Nations was created to stop war. Once that is your preeminent goal, appeasement becomes preferable to conflict, no matter the circumstances. Quite literally, the U.N. believes that nothing is worth fighting for.

Jim, again: I hate to turn this thread into a Jim rant-a-thon, but one last point about the relevancy and significance of the United Nations. I found a declaration from Kofi Annan a little while back:

The International Day of Peace is a day on which we try to imagine a world quite different from the one we know.

We try to picture those who wage war laying down their arms and talking out their differences.

We try to picture all governments listening to — and acting on — the will of the people.

We try to picture hatred turning into respect, bigotry turning into understanding, and ignorance turning into knowledge.

And we try to picture the very root causes of conflict — poverty, marginalization and greed — giving way to development and justice.

We do this because progress in our world does not happen without someone first having a vision or a dream.

The International Day of Peace started with such a dream. It was proclaimed 20 years ago by the United Nations General Assembly, at the initiative of Costa Rica.

This year, at the initiative of Costa Rica and the United Kingdom, the Assembly decided to go one step further. It declared that the International Day of Peace should be a day of global ceasefire and non-violence.

This step promises to be more than symbolic. Where respected, it will have practical effect. Where truces are observed, medical and developmental agencies can provide vital services to civilian victims in safety. And even a one-day pause in the fighting gives us something to build on in the work to end conflict.

On this International Day of Peace, let us dare to imagine a world free of conflict and violence. And let us seize the opportunity for peace to take hold, day by day, year by year, until every day is a day of peace.

Kofi’s message was issued the morning of that year’s International Day of Peace… September 11, 2001.

Cam: Wow. That is a gloomy assessment over at TKS. If you actually listened to music I’d tell you to take the Joy Division cd out of the player for a moment.

At this point, my only question regarding the UN is, why are there no serious moves in Congress to simply pull out of the UN? Does it accomplish anything worthwhile? Is it just that we’re happy with the status quo? Would there be serious international repurcussions if we were to simply leave? I see stories like this and think that we’d need more than an army of John Bolton’s to ever hope to reform that place.