How Unicef can kill millions of kids: a bargain at 8 pence each
How much does it cost to kill a pesky kid? This is a question which has been much exercising the Count since Halloween. Next Halloween when the kids come round demanding treats with smiles and menaces with a valkerie of a mother in the background, the Count intends to give them a trick, not a treat: he will kill the little varmits. To do so, he will contact Unicef who have handily calculated that they can kill off loads of kids for less than eight pence a time.
Most bullshit cost of calculations are done to show that there is a billion or trillion dollar problem somewhere, so if someone gives the slimeball who made the calculation a few hundred million to make the problem go away, that is a good investment. Naturally, the calculations are all designed to maximise the cost of whatever their pet problem is, like Social Anxiety Disdorder (solution: become an actuary) or Antention Deficit Disorder (symptom: being a male child being taught by a useless and boring teacher. Solution: get a good teacher).
These calculations are turned on their head when asking the public for money. Suddenly, the bullshit artists want to show that a few pounds every month will save the world from poverty, famine disease, war and disasters like having to listen to Oasis.
Enter the leading contender for the "save the planet for a quid" contest: Unicef.
Here is their latest appeal for £2 a month from the Count's rapidly dwindling fortune: £2 "could save the lives of 13 children". That is eight pence a child. Then they get even better: "with just £2 a month...you can continue to provide children all over the world with immunisation, shelter, clean water, food and protect them when emergencies arise."
This is clearly a bargain. I would like to entrust my many children, legitimate and otherwise, to the care of Unicef. I hope Unicef can feed them all and deal with their emergencies (like "I absolutely must have the latest gameboy because all my friends have one... and a pony...and the latest mobile phone... and a frock or two....and a car...you just don't understand what it's like: how am I expected to live another day without this?") for just £2 a day. It sounds like the bargain of a life time.
Of course, the thought that the £2 might actually be used to buy a raspberry frapuccino for a Unicef slime ball is unreasonable. Or if the Count contributed £2 a month for, say a hundred years, it might just go to pay for one of the outsized vehicles with even more outsized aerials that Unicef staff like to swan around in like latter day imperialists. They have all the trappings of imperialism: power, money, servants, nice houses away from the riff raff, pensions and big salaries. Like the imperialists of old, they also claim to have morality on their side. They figure that by making the poor dependent on aid they are superior to imperialists who generally encouraged the poor to look after themselves and get rich: poor people were a drain on empire, rich ones could support empire. The new imperialists prefer to keep their clients poor because otherwise they will put themselves out of business.
And Unicef is big business: $2 billion turnover. But their annual report would have the directors of a real business put in jail faster than Unicef can blow £2 on its raspberry frapuccino. They have no balance sheet, cash flow or P&L and give no clues as to how much they spend on advertising their bullshit and no clue as to how much they pay their cretinous management. But let's assume the head of Unicef receives a modest $250,000 a year with the same again for pensions, allowances and travel and the same again for the office support of secretaries and flunkies. That comes out at $750,000 a year. Call it £400,000. For that amount of money, Unicef could save 5 million children's lives according to its own figures.
If the leadership of Unicef actually believed in what they were doing, they would work on a voluntary, unpaid basis. Or they would survive on a modest $20,000 a year. But by putting their own comfort first and investing in themselves not in children, they are electing to let up to 5 million children die. So if it comes to a nice comfy life for Unicef slimeballs or letting millions of children die, there is no doubt what Unicef will choose: let the kids die. A few millon child deaths versus a comfortable retirement? Easy choice.
They should follow the example of the Count who will never work for pay. The Coutness, with her normal droll wit, observes that I never work at all. The joys of marriage.....
Most bullshit cost of calculations are done to show that there is a billion or trillion dollar problem somewhere, so if someone gives the slimeball who made the calculation a few hundred million to make the problem go away, that is a good investment. Naturally, the calculations are all designed to maximise the cost of whatever their pet problem is, like Social Anxiety Disdorder (solution: become an actuary) or Antention Deficit Disorder (symptom: being a male child being taught by a useless and boring teacher. Solution: get a good teacher).
These calculations are turned on their head when asking the public for money. Suddenly, the bullshit artists want to show that a few pounds every month will save the world from poverty, famine disease, war and disasters like having to listen to Oasis.
Enter the leading contender for the "save the planet for a quid" contest: Unicef.
Here is their latest appeal for £2 a month from the Count's rapidly dwindling fortune: £2 "could save the lives of 13 children". That is eight pence a child. Then they get even better: "with just £2 a month...you can continue to provide children all over the world with immunisation, shelter, clean water, food and protect them when emergencies arise."
This is clearly a bargain. I would like to entrust my many children, legitimate and otherwise, to the care of Unicef. I hope Unicef can feed them all and deal with their emergencies (like "I absolutely must have the latest gameboy because all my friends have one... and a pony...and the latest mobile phone... and a frock or two....and a car...you just don't understand what it's like: how am I expected to live another day without this?") for just £2 a day. It sounds like the bargain of a life time.
Of course, the thought that the £2 might actually be used to buy a raspberry frapuccino for a Unicef slime ball is unreasonable. Or if the Count contributed £2 a month for, say a hundred years, it might just go to pay for one of the outsized vehicles with even more outsized aerials that Unicef staff like to swan around in like latter day imperialists. They have all the trappings of imperialism: power, money, servants, nice houses away from the riff raff, pensions and big salaries. Like the imperialists of old, they also claim to have morality on their side. They figure that by making the poor dependent on aid they are superior to imperialists who generally encouraged the poor to look after themselves and get rich: poor people were a drain on empire, rich ones could support empire. The new imperialists prefer to keep their clients poor because otherwise they will put themselves out of business.
And Unicef is big business: $2 billion turnover. But their annual report would have the directors of a real business put in jail faster than Unicef can blow £2 on its raspberry frapuccino. They have no balance sheet, cash flow or P&L and give no clues as to how much they spend on advertising their bullshit and no clue as to how much they pay their cretinous management. But let's assume the head of Unicef receives a modest $250,000 a year with the same again for pensions, allowances and travel and the same again for the office support of secretaries and flunkies. That comes out at $750,000 a year. Call it £400,000. For that amount of money, Unicef could save 5 million children's lives according to its own figures.
If the leadership of Unicef actually believed in what they were doing, they would work on a voluntary, unpaid basis. Or they would survive on a modest $20,000 a year. But by putting their own comfort first and investing in themselves not in children, they are electing to let up to 5 million children die. So if it comes to a nice comfy life for Unicef slimeballs or letting millions of children die, there is no doubt what Unicef will choose: let the kids die. A few millon child deaths versus a comfortable retirement? Easy choice.
They should follow the example of the Count who will never work for pay. The Coutness, with her normal droll wit, observes that I never work at all. The joys of marriage.....
posted by Count Kostov at
10:59 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home