Michelle Malkin » U.N. to distribute very special humanitarian aid to Burma cyclone victims

U.N. to distribute very special humanitarian aid to Burma cyclone victims

By see-dubya • May 23, 2008 07:23 AM

If I had read this story on a conservative parody site like Scrappleface or The Nose on Your Face, I’d think, “come on, guys, that’s a little heavy-handed.”

But, it’s real:

The United Nations will send nearly a quarter of a million condoms into cyclone-hit Myanmar to help needy survivors with no access to contraceptives, a UN official says.

So far, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) said it had sent 72 800 condoms to survivors struggling to maintain their family planning after the storm hit in early May.

If any one story sums up what the U.N. has become, this is it. It’s at once so clueless and out-of-touch to be darkly comical (Hey, you know these people rebuilding their lives amid the bloated corpses and amoebic dysentery and famine really need? Some condoms!) while at the same time being sinister and malevolent, and redolent of Margaret Sanger’s eugenics movement. Somewhere poor brown people are multiplying, UNFPA notes with alarm, and primly resolve to help them stop.

They’re a very C.S. Lewis sort of villain, thoroughly dangerous and yet still laughable, especially because of the deadly seriousness with which they take themselves. If you’ve read The Screwtape Letters or especially That Hideous Strength, you’ll know what I mean. What is the United Nations but the National Institute for Coordinated Experiments writ large?

Hat tip to Vanderleun. One of his commenters speculates that there may be even more in those “reproductive health” kits than reported in the article:

Hmm, they’ve stopped mentioning the manual vacuum aspirators included in the standard “reproductive health kits” the UN sends into disaster areas. The probably focus-grouped even worse than the condoms. (Seriously, there was some complaining when the full contents of the “RH Kit” was mentioned in news reports after the Indian Ocean tsunami a few years ago.)

(What are the aspirators for? Well, when your country is hit by a natural disaster, isn’t the first thing you think of the urgent need to restore proper abortion services? But alas there is a lack of electricity, hence the manually-operated aspirators.)

I don’t find any mention of that RH Kit backlash after the tsunami, but the kits with the vacuum aspirators for abortions were being discussed by the UN last year for refugees in Tanzania. (.pdf link; ctrl-f for “aspirator”.) More on the UNFPA’s abortion-machine handouts to Kosovar refugees here. Interestingly, UNFPA was invited to share this technology with the Kosovars by Slobodan Milosevic, who saw it as sort of a pre-emptive continuation of his ethnic cleansing program.

Seriously, read that last one. It may be some small consolation to you that the Bush Administration has, for the past four years, withheld any U.S. funds from going to UNFPA. Good for them.

__________

{Post by See-Dubya}

Posted in: Abortion, United Nations

Send to a Friend
Printer Friendly

comments (111)

trackbacks (14)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: « 1 [2]

#101

On May 23rd, 2008 at 4:17 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

On May 23rd, 2008 at 3:02 pm, Ahh a Lion! said:

The UN doesn’t care about stopping the spread of VDs, they care about stopping the spread of people.

Great post. You have no idea how much truth is in that one little statement.
#102

On May 23rd, 2008 at 5:59 pm, Texas Tiger said:

On May 23rd, 2008 at 3:14 pm, zeroangel said:

Tiger:

No one is saying its the greatest health risk.

But I am questioning why the UN, rather than addressing health priorites 1 through x chose to address priority x+1.

Any numbers in yet on UN spending? Bueller? Bueller?
#103

On May 23rd, 2008 at 7:05 pm, Straight_Talk_Luigi said:

Is something wrong here? Did they send condoms instead of food and clothing? Maybe a little condom usage will pick up people’s spirits.

Blah! Just another excuse for liberal morons in the UN to force their secular values on other countries.
#104

On May 23rd, 2008 at 7:20 pm, Regulus said:

So when the situation is desperate and it’s essential that food and medicine be brought in to a ravaged country, what does the UN send?

The same thing that the Luftwaffe sent to German soldiers trapped in Stalingrad in 1942.

Condoms must be the 8th Wonder of the World, no? Evidently they’re nutritious; they can prevent and cure virtually any disease or injury; they can keep you warm in the winter; and you can even use them as weapons or ammunition.

What can’t you do with them?
#105

On May 23rd, 2008 at 7:36 pm, starlightwoman said:

Are they edible????? Sounds like more typical UN waste to me. You have people without food or water and they send these.
#106

On May 23rd, 2008 at 7:50 pm, graysonret said:

We have people starving, dehyrated and in desperate need of medicine, so the UN sends condoms. Sad part about this is some people are defending the U.N.. Trust me, the last thing these people are concerned about is unprotected sex.
#107

On May 24th, 2008 at 1:58 am, AlabamaMama said:

Why on earth do people assume that the victims are even remotely interested in sex right now?? Let me give a personal anecdote, here… The worst natural disaster I’ve ever been through was Hurricane Ivan in ‘04. For about a week after the hurricane, our world revolved around removing enourmous fallen pine trees from our yard, re-shingling the roof, and other myriad tasks in an attempt to get things back to the way they were. The furthest thing from our minds was sex– we were too exhausted, plus no electricity meant no air conditioning, so extra body-heat just wasn’t something we were interested in. We’re lucky in that we experience natural disasters in the US. These people do not have that benefit. They are not just trying to clean up their yards and get their homes put back together. They’re trying to find their missing friends and relatives while coping with the loss of so many such people. They can’t just drive to the closest distribution center and pick up bags of ice and MRE’s when the food in their refrigerators starts to spoil. They need food. They need clean water. They need shelter. TRUST me, they are not all thinking about “doing it” the first chance they get.
Someone commented above that the UN is basically just projecting their priorities on the Burmese people, and I have to agree. People who don’t have to worry about where they are going to sleep, where their water comes from, or where their next meal is coming from tend to have a hard time understanding the priorities of people who do.
#108

On May 24th, 2008 at 3:12 am, expat said:

ZA,

Have you ever delivered HA supplies? Have you ever packed a truck, helicopter or other relief vehicle? 72,000 condoms come in boxes. Boxes take up lots of space. Space is what we look at when packing these supplies more than weight or the cost of the item. It does not matter how much the condoms cost in comparison with the rest of the relief supplies sent in. The room that they took up prohibited water, food, medicines and clothing/blankets from being delivered. If in two months after the area was stabilized and there was progress being made, not probable, then go ahead and waste your time. Don’t do it now and don’t use my tax dollars more importantly.
#109

On May 24th, 2008 at 12:43 pm, atheling said:

It’s the UN version of:

“Let them eat cake”.
#110

On May 24th, 2008 at 1:03 pm, love2rumba said:

Be careful Michelle, now that you mentioned the Bush Administration’s refusal to fund this program….Juan McCain will fund it now!
#111

On May 27th, 2008 at 3:23 pm, nyc123me said:

Maybe the UN thought the condoms could be used as flotation devices?