Although I do not agree with this proclamation, I could probably make an argument for it if I back it up with general statements and stereotypes — a technique used by Ian Clift in his column "United Nations has become a tyrannical beast" published on Jan 31.

In this piece, Clift takes statements such as, "A number of disturbing parallels exist between our own United States and the United Nations," and "It starts out with good intentions usually with a list of objectives (left vague in order for corruption to occur) and progresses into something much bigger and more ominous than before." These foreboding statements are then backed as follows. The disturbing parallels: both the United States and the United Nations start with the word "United." Oddly enough, that is the only disturbing parallel that he lists. He mentions the fact that the United States is in the United Nations and the fact that it aids the United Nations, but that makes sense since it is a member of the United Nations, right? Does membership make it a parallel? The second statement is vague. The "it" that "starts out with good intentions" could mean most anything. I'll take it to mean a political institution since that's what would make the most sense. Of course, in almost all institutions there is corruption, but since the United Nations has 189 members, those few corrupt members are held in check by the wishes of the other 180 or so members. That's a parallel to the United States government, but holding corruption in check isn't a disturbing parallel, is it? What Clift is doing here is making pointless anti-American and anti-UN accusations backed with arguments that are ad ignorum. Maybe those who would like to write about politics should do more than minimal research first.