President Obama will help #StarttheSpark for entrepreneurs in Africa & globally when he travels to #GES2015 in Nairobi this July.
[/url]President Obama will help #StarttheSpark for entrepreneurs in Africa & globally when he travels to #GES2015 in Nairobi this July.
— Susan Rice -Archived (@AmbRice44) March 30, 2015
Is that why some things are happening?Is that why ouru is pretending to fight graft now?
Why do I get this feeling that he will skip the visit over some undisclosed heightened risk? If I was Ouruto, I'd downplay it till he shows upFrom what I have heard, it's not a long duration trip. So the man will probably just shut down Nairobi for a few hours and then leave.
PS: I don't for a second think that Negroes-Al shabaab can plot a serious and intelligent attack against him
seems uhuru never was informed till the news started circulating online and thus his handlers summoned Godec for hurried presser to save face .... I thought Obama would do better to respect Africans but seems the democrat blood runs deep ...... though we can understand his dilemma but he should have done better for Africa-US relationsI think Obama figured he had to visit Kenya, no matter what. He would have hoped for a better situation, but his connection to it meant that he had to be at least that US President that set foot in Kenya.
Obama is a waste of time and space as far as Kenya and Africa is concerned. The man is huge failure as far as raising the issues of endemic poverty and diseases afflicting the continent..in a world that surely can do much much more to help alleviate the suffering here.
George Bush compassion for Africa was real...he just made a blunder of invading Iraq!
Obama is a waste of time and space as far as Kenya and Africa is concerned. The man is huge failure as far as raising the issues of endemic poverty and diseases afflicting the continent..in a world that surely can do much much more to help alleviate the suffering here.
George Bush compassion for Africa was real...he just made a blunder of invading Iraq!
What must be pointed out is that the "endemic poverty and diseases afflicting the continent" are fundamentally not Obama's (or anyone else's problem). Africans really must give up this idea that they are somebody else's responsibility and work to improve their lot.
Kenyans are dying like flies from just a lack of toilets, but look at all the money that is getting eaten. (You yourself write on another thread that "Corruption is now a serious cancer that is killing us.") Sudan has oil but is going down in flames because of two boneheads. ... Look around: all over Africa, the African does not seem to be doing a great deal for himself, endlessly engaging in self-destruction while crying that outsiders are not helping improve things. That is what needs to change.
Pundit is right if he means Obama cares less about Africans' immediate well-being than Bush; maybe even long term. Yet if the African is to change his lot in life, he must be weaned off that notion of an altruistic rescuer from outside. Obama job is to look out for number 1; American corporations.
Pundit is right if he means Obama cares less about Africans' immediate well-being than Bush; maybe even long term. Yet if the African is to change his lot in life, he must be weaned off that notion of an altruistic rescuer from outside. Obama job is to look out for number 1; American corporations.
Yes. Americans elected Obama to work for them, and so they have a right to complain if Obama shows them less "compassion". Africans have no such right, especially when they themselves show very little care for each other. In any case, Kenyans, in particular, have little reason to complain: under Obama, Kenya leapt into the Top-10 of US aid recipients
When it comes to a visit such as this one, it would be nice to hear about Kenyans and Africans trying to figure out how they can persuade Obama and the USA to work with them in a way that will improve their lot. It is bizarre to hold the view that such a visit is useless because Obama will not be bringing "compassion", i.e. handing over a lot of freebies. The onus is on Africans to make the most of such visits, not for Obama to rack his brains on how to deal with the continent's "endemic poverty and diseases afflicting the continent".
You make shockingly ignorant statements. First everyone need help at some point of time. Africa need help in many areas including in fighting corruption, in improving it's democratic systems, in building better institutions and name any problem you keep lamenting about
Without help Vooke would a chokora somewhere..and MoonKi will not be abroad acting like he is now a white man....detached from his suffering folks...he would be like most typical kenyans layabouts wasting away in cheap brew while battling Malaria or HIV.
There is no doubt that Obama is more than US president. He is the leader of global superpower (let ignore the rise of counter-balancing China for now) with incredible power to help struggling and poor victims of poverty, poor governance and let just say Africans, Kenyans and his Siaya people.
Obama should have made this clear to Americans, Europeans and everyone in any summit that Africa poverty remain a huge blight in the conscience of humanity...that Africans are still dying in their millions from easily preventable disease..from starvation..
Obama ought to have done more.
The great thing..Africa is turning the corner..Africa is rising...despite Obama snubs..and thanks to CHINA. All indicators are starting to look sustainably good...this may sound strange to ignorant people who shouts everytime we have news of starving or dying people..unaware that African now has less starvation, less diseases, more democratic gov, more peace and generally standards of living are improving..thanks in part of course to Bush Snr, Bush Jrn and Clinton...and China...
Pundit,
I don't think MOON Ki is questioning that people need help. Africa definitely needs help in many areas.
But you have to remember that for the better part of 50 years, they had a blank check, no questions asked, courtesy of the cold war.
What did they produce? Mobutu, Moi, Mengistu etc. Somalia had more missiles than grains of rice. Why should Obama or any other outsider feel responsible for that?
You make shockingly ignorant statements. First everyone need help at some point of time. Africa need help in many areas including in fighting corruption, in improving it's democratic systems, in building better institutions and name any problem you keep lamenting about
First, try to avoid the type unhelpful emotional language that adds nothing to the discussion; instead, try constructing solid, objective arguments. Also note that merely stating that I am ignorant does not make it a fact.
Second, the main issue is not whether or not Africans need help; it is whether they are also prepared to help themselves. Until they are, no amount of external help will work in the long term. You mention corruption, for example. In say, Kenya, what can the rest of the world do about corruption as long as the Kenyan leadership is so devoted to eating? What, for example, would you like Obama to do about that?QuoteWithout help Vooke would a chokora somewhere..and MoonKi will not be abroad acting like he is now a white man....detached from his suffering folks...he would be like most typical kenyans layabouts wasting away in cheap brew while battling Malaria or HIV.
Again, unhelpful emotion. Pointing out that places like Kenya (and the rest of Africa) could do much better is just:
(a) simply noting the obvious fact that Kenya (and Africa) is mostly run down by Kenyans (and Africans); and
(b) not "behaving like a white man", whatever that means; on the contrary, it is based on the observation that white man, Asian man, etc. is not endowed with superhuman qualities, and there is no reason why Mwafrika too cannot lift himself up.
Wherever I am and whatever I am doing, please don't make any assumptions about some "help" that you think I got. And as to whether I would otherwise be "wasting away in cheap brew while battling Malaria or HIV", the simple fact is that I am not. Of course, you are free to dwell on the thought if it gives you some comfort.QuoteThere is no doubt that Obama is more than US president. He is the leader of global superpower (let ignore the rise of counter-balancing China for now) with incredible power to help struggling and poor victims of poverty, poor governance and let just say Africans, Kenyans and his Siaya people.
Again, I will point you to all the eating scandals in Kenya, the wastage of money, the misplaced priorities, the bad governance, etc. What exactly would you like Obama to do about that? Please come up with some concrete idea, rather than simply saying that he can do more, more, more.
A few years ago, the USAID rep while ( at budget time) testifying before the USA Congress stated that aid to Kenya (under Obama) was rising so fast they had not had the time to hire enough people quickly enough to manage the "Kenyan file". Right now, Kenya is on the way to being one of the biggest beneficiaries of the Power-Africa thing. Kenya has been admitted into Obama's Feed The Future Programme. There is even a Parliamentary Strengthening Program that is supposed to help the elected eaters learn about governance. And so on.
What more would you like, and why?QuoteObama should have made this clear to Americans, Europeans and everyone in any summit that Africa poverty remain a huge blight in the conscience of humanity...that Africans are still dying in their millions from easily preventable disease..from starvation..
And the USA, even under Obama, has been keeping many alive with yellow maize for years and years, but that is not a permanent solution. Similarly, the USA, even under Obama, has been spending huge sums on African health. But that too is not a permanent solution. What is needed is for Africans to get serious about their food security, basic health, and so on. That is what I have been urging.
Let us, again, take Kenya, as an example. We have heard about huge plans for irrigation, but nothing has come of them while money continues to be wasted elsewhere. Where is the focus on clean water, toilets, and so forth?
What more is it exactly that you would like the USA and the rest of the world to do about starvation and easily preventable diseases in Africa anyway? More importantly, it is good that the rest of the world cares to some extent, but, really, why should they when African "leaders" themselves don't see those as priorities.
What's more, I will note that when (on the China thread) I noted how the USA has been helping in the areas of health, food, and so on, you cheerfully dismissed it because there was "nothing to see as a result" and that China's help with infrastructure counts for much more. And now here you are!
Now that you appear to have finally seen some sense, I suggest that you go back and re-read what I wrote about real human development.
By the way, why should Africa be a "huge blight in the conscience of humanity"? As far as I can tell it is mostly Africans who are finishing Africans.QuoteObama ought to have done more.
Why is that? And, again, what exactly would you have him do? Please don't just say "more"!QuoteThe great thing..Africa is turning the corner..Africa is rising...despite Obama snubs..and thanks to CHINA. All indicators are starting to look sustainably good...this may sound strange to ignorant people who shouts everytime we have news of starving or dying people..unaware that African now has less starvation, less diseases, more democratic gov, more peace and generally standards of living are improving..thanks in part of course to Bush Snr, Bush Jrn and Clinton...and China...
He, he, he ... I really like this one! I never though the day would come!
Back on one of your "China-Will-Save-Africa", you maintained that US aid to Africa has had no effect, that it's been eaten by NGOS, and so on and so forth. And here you are, thanking Bush Snr, Bush Jrn and Clinton for "less starvation, less diseases, more democratic gov, more peace and generally standards of living"!
As for the "good indicators" from Kung Fu, what exactly are they? Can China help Africa if Africans will not help Africa? For today's case study, let us take Angola, which:
(a) Has plenty of natural resources that the Chinese want and are getting.
(b) Is China's 2nd largest trading partner in Africa. Something resembling real two-way trade.
(c) Has had the Chinese busy building all sorts of infrastructure. Serious infrastructure.
So are there plenty of "good indicators" there for most of Angola's population? You can get a partial answer by reading this:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-32067602
Please read it carefully. It will help you understand what I mean when I say that only Africans will save Africa. So what I would like you to do:
(a) Stop indulging in fantasies that the rest of the world should look after Africa, this or that person or country should do more for Africa, Africa should be on the conscience (over-milked already), etc. Give up this stuff about "China will save us but Obama is a bad man for not doing more".
(b) Start to ask what Africans (especially their "leaders") can do and are doing for Africa and Africans. Let's hear what African "leaders" are doing about health, food security, etc. In Kenya, for example, let's read good news about better health care for the children, more clean water, better food security ... instead of the endless corruption scandals.
Africa has the land to grow food. Africa has whatever natural resources are required. Africa has a youthful energetic population that can work. What is lacking is the will and clear thinking in its "leadership". What is there but needs to be discarded is this perpetual saidia, saidia, saidia mentality toward the rest of the world.
(For the latter, let's start with you and your sort: believe me, it is not that mzungu or kung fu has better witchdoctors; even you can do whatever he has done or is capable of doing.)
That is clever play of words that exactly mean Africa never needed help. Africa need help. What sort of help. Those helping Africa have to keep learning on what works and what doesn't work. We cannot condemn people just because of Moi or Mobutu. The quality of Africa leadership is poor and that is EXPECTED. It is not strange that we have really poor grade leadership right thro the systems. It is part of the problem that requires fixing.
The US and other donors have to keep learning what works and what doesn't.
US for many years has been Africa biggest raw material importer..and yet the continue to EXPLOIT Africa for really cheap and doggy contracts.
Has Obama made this an issue to US companies?
How about corruption emanating from American companies operating in Africa?
How about building infrastructure using China model where it very hard for corrupt kenyan gov to siphon off all the funds..
Obama is a brilliant guy with first experience of worst form of poverty having spent time in Siaya. He should and can do more.
In your typical attempt to nitpick you've missed my point.
You admit Obama has done nothing new except perhaps favour kenya by increasing Bush Jnr
Perhaps Obama with Africa roots would have created a brand new US AFRICA FUND or AID AGENCY?
Chinese in the same period have rolled out several Africa funds.
How much would it have cost Obama to get US to fund piped water for everyone Nyanza? Spare change.
Obama despite his African heritage has done nothing new or inspiring for Africans..in fact he has done less or nothing.
Meanwhile China has been rolling out super highways, high speed rails,mega dams and paying a premium for Africa raw materilas from Angola, to Nigeria, to Sudan, to Ethiopia, to Zambia, to Kenya and name them.
In your typical attempt to nitpick you've missed my point.
He, he, he ... I always see that whenever I try to move you towards concrete and objective statements and away from vague, hand-waving stuff.QuoteYou admit Obama has done nothing new except perhaps favour kenya by increasing Bush Jnr
And where did I do that?QuotePerhaps Obama with Africa roots would have created a brand new US AFRICA FUND or AID AGENCY?
First, as I have indicated above, you need to get beyond the typical (and damaging) African thinking of "he is from our area, so we expect manna to rain from his heaven". Other than the fact that Obama is only very vaguely Africans, I note that not even folks from places where he actually grew up are demanding so much on such a questionable basis.
Second, why should he roll out new "AFRICA FUND or AID AGENCY?" if the existing ones can do the job? What types of "fund or aid agency" do you have in mind, and what would they do that is not being done or cannot be done by the existing ones?QuoteChinese in the same period have rolled out several Africa funds.
Tell us a bit more. Then we can have an objective discussion.QuoteHow much would it have cost Obama to get US to fund piped water for everyone Nyanza? Spare change.
Obama despite his African heritage has done nothing new or inspiring for Africans..in fact he has done less or nothing.
Emotional and unhelpful clap-trap.QuoteMeanwhile China has been rolling out super highways, high speed rails,mega dams and paying a premium for Africa raw materilas from Angola, to Nigeria, to Sudan, to Ethiopia, to Zambia, to Kenya and name them.
I gave you Angola as a case-study:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-32067602
Please discuss. How is the average Angolan benefiting from all the "super highways, high speed rails,mega dams and paying a premium for Africa raw materilas"?
* Right now, about 25% of Kenyan children under five will be permanently damaged, from poor physical and mental growth, because a a lack of proper nutrition. And the Chinese infrastructure is helping that how?
* What premiums on raw materials? The Saudis and the USA have managed to drive the price of oil down dramatically in the last year. Are the Chinese paying more for oil, or are they paying market rates?
* "High speed rails": where and when? When Kenya's great SGR is finished it will run at speeds of about 80-120 kph. That's what the Japanese have on refurbished narrow-gauge lines that are older than Kenya's. But Kenyans think they have leapt into the Star-Trek hyper-galactic speed mode!
MoonKi,
Once you will be able to distinguish btw your bile against Africa political leadership and the poor victims of the same suffering in great poverty and misery..majority lacking the ability to make rational political decision..then we can have a debate.
All i can hear are your tirade against Africa leadership (anyone can fill up pages with that)...with very little in terms of solutions to help the poor in these countries..with real tangible sustainable development models.
This is not the first time we have heard an Africa like situation...nothing novel here.
Obama could have really helped if he really needed to...either thro or bypassing Africa countries.
Will Siaya refuse 100M USD Obama grant to build a university that will educate 20,000 graduates annually (rather than spending the same money in some opaque youth leadership nonsense)...Will Siaya people refuse pipe water to every household from US goverment? Will Siaya people refuses tarmac road from Obama? Will Siaya people refuses Obama assistance to build small time factories in Siaya? Will Siaya people refuse Obama help to modernize their schools?
Well perhaps Obama can learn from Africa leaders who despite stealing get elected...they deliver some form of Maendeleo that people want...some school there..an hospital here...a tarmac road there..
Those are the things that MATTER in SIAYA, in CHINA and in the US. Not some opaque AID given to some opaque NGOs delivering some Opaque services.
More nitpicking spawning ....
new diversion away from Obama obvious lack of anything he has done for Africa
More nitpicking spawning ....
Yes, I knew concrete facts (e.g. Angola) against Kung-Fu-As-Saviour would awkward. Nitpicking! Far easier to believe that Kung Fu will miraculously save those who can't be bothered to save themselves. National development as mindless religious faith: No matter! The Great ExternalWhiteYellow One will make sure that all is well in the end!Quotenew diversion away from Obama obvious lack of anything he has done for Africa
I have tried to do that, in several ways. So before I make any other attempt---and I will be happy to do so---how about we start at the beginning:
Why should Obama do anything for Africa?
(After the why, we can get to the what.)
living relatives in Kogelo living like savages..
I supported Obama first election and by the time of his re-election i was out of that bandawagon...
Pundit, you are a funny guy! You did not quite answer the "preliminary" question I asked, but let me try with another one:
Why should anyone bother to try to help those who don't seem keen to help themselves?
One reason I ask is that taxpayers in those countries that you insist must help Africa because "it needs help" keep asking why they should bother when they look at, say, all the corruption scandals in a place like Kenya. (Folks in those countries too have their own problems.)Quoteliving relatives in Kogelo living like savages..
I have actually been to the place. That's not what I thought of it. I saw people just getting on with a relatively simple but decent life. Where did you get that one?QuoteI supported Obama first election and by the time of his re-election i was out of that bandawagon...
Just as well for him that he wasn't counting in support from Mavoko, eh?
Part of helping Africa is because they can't help themselves.
And secondly because the Africa poverty is troubling for anyone.
That should include citizens of US. I doubt US citizen will riot if Obama increase USAID budget from 2% to 5%. They haven't rioted when US has helped Isreal.
And that is general image you see in 95% of rural sub-saharan africa...uniform poverty.
When they see that...their human compassion will drive them to do more. Obama has to make them SEE IT. He has to talk ABOUT IT. He has to make sure AFRICA POVERTY is global issue...for people to grapple with..including all the problems you've identified.
That is clever play of words that exactly mean Africa never needed help. Africa need help. What sort of help. Those helping Africa have to keep learning on what works and what doesn't work. We cannot condemn people just because of Moi or Mobutu. The quality of Africa leadership is poor and that is EXPECTED. It is not strange that we have really poor grade leadership right thro the systems. It is part of the problem that requires fixing.I understand that need for help. In deserving cases. Maybe Obama should be more generous, because compared to smaller countries in Scandinavia, per capita US aid to Africa is peanuts. I could make that argument. But not because Africa has shown it is deserving - at least the leaders.
The US and other donors have to keep learning what works and what doesn't. Evidence shows the AID industry has failed.But doesn't mean you give up. For example,has US tried something else...like paying an extra premium for any raw material from Africa...aware it's coming from a place where poverty levels are shockingly unacceptable in this rich planet? US for many years has been Africa biggest raw material importer..and yet the continue to EXPLOIT Africa through really cheap and doggy contracts. Has Obama made this an issue to US companies? How about corruption emanating from American companies operating in Africa?
How about building infrastructure using China model where it very hard for corrupt kenyan gov to siphon off all the funds..and at least deliver some key roads, water projects, sewage systems,railway lines??????????? Hasn't China managed to deliver despite and in spite of graft!
Obama is a brilliant guy with first experience some of world's worst form of poverty having spent time in Siaya. He should and can do more.
Obama instead has done nothing...except if we go by Moonki quietly improve on Kenya's funding of Bush Jnr Key initiative for Africa...such as global fund for Malaria, HIV and TB.
Compared to what previous great president have done..like ending colonialism, slavery, civil rights for blacks, ending dictatorship in Africa and creating institutions like WB, US peace corps, name them...Obama has done nothing.
Give me George Bush Jnr or Clinton any time any day...Obama Jnr the joker doesn't deserve any welcome when he brings his uninvited self to Nairobi.
Uhuru can make Africa really proud by snubbing him.Pundit,
I don't think MOON Ki is questioning that people need help. Africa definitely needs help in many areas.
But you have to remember that for the better part of 50 years, they had a blank check, no questions asked, courtesy of the cold war.
What did they produce? Mobutu, Moi, Mengistu etc. Somalia had more missiles than grains of rice. Why should Obama or any other outsider feel responsible for that?
I understand that need for help. In deserving cases. Maybe Obama should be more generous, because compared to smaller countries in Scandinavia, per capita US aid to Africa is peanuts. I could make that argument. But not because Africa has shown it is deserving - at least the leaders.
I read somewhere, I don't have the info handy - maybe you do, about an obscene number put out there of how much is lost in corruption every year in Kenya.
That said, I think one area he can immediately make an impact is in Business Process Outsourcing. Kenyans speak better English than Indians, a decently educated unemployed population, yet India has quite literally hogged that sector. Obama can make a pitch for Kenyans in that arena.
a decently educated unemployed population
Pundit, you are a funny guy! You did not quite answer the "preliminary" question I asked, but let me try with another one:
Why should anyone bother to try to help those who don't seem keen to help themselves?
I can think of a few reasons why "the world" should help Africa:
1) It is simply better for every one in the long run. A bigger, better, reliable economic and security partner for all those rich countries that now control the world.
2) A substantial amount of wealth in Western countries has come from raping the continent, so its only fair.
3) It is human. Humans in a position to help humans in trouble should simply do so; we are not sociopaths, as every disaster that elicits an outpouring of help globally, predictably shows is the human way.
I don't share all of Pundit's criticisms of obama but I share his frustration with diasporans whose bitterness about the weaknesses of our people in comparison to the bazungu brings them to the point of contempt. Sometimes it seems some of you would trade skins if it were possible. You are basically questioning why the rest of the world should help your own people just because 90% of them do not share the enlightenment that your education and exposure have afforded you.
I understand your defense of what Obama has done, which I don't personally know enough to counter (my impression is much like Pundits, that past American presidents have done more, but I think its because Obama's hands were tied precisely due to his heritage and he probably couldn't do as much as a white man without raising eyebrows in the shark-tank that is American politics). But I don't understand statements like this, implying there is no moral responsibility for humans with better fortunes to assist those dealt worse hands. Yes, Africans should do better for themselves and slowly but surely they are learning. Only a century ago, majority of us couldn't read or write and hadn't the vaguest idea yet that the world was round and not flat, and much bigger than we ever dreamed, still thought lightening was caused by a red-rooster somewhere. We are building nations slowly from a very tribal and pre-historic base. We are far from modern. Surely, Africa needs time to get its cultural act together so that we can get our institutions in order and no longer need the help of other people? Children are born then walk and stumble. We are not yet running.
Part of helping Africa is because they can't help themselves.
I think we are now getting closer to common ground: they certainly aren't helping them. But I say they can---and should & eventually must---help themselves. It is not a matter of "strong medicine", and even witch-doctoring skills can, I am told, be learned.QuoteAnd secondly because the Africa poverty is troubling for anyone.
I doubt it. But there seems to be that idea in Africa. And it might explain why the African "leaders" keep f**king around while at the same time vigorously begging. The truth, however, is that there is some "Africa fatigue" settling in. People are beginning to ask about helping people whose own leaders don't care to help; so it would be unwise to bank on the notion that Africa can forever rely on saidia, saidia, saidia.QuoteThat should include citizens of US. I doubt US citizen will riot if Obama increase USAID budget from 2% to 5%. They haven't rioted when US has helped Isreal.
Israel certainly does get the lion's share of US aid. But there's a feeling, right or wrong, that it's trying to do for itself. One certainly never sees photos of diseased, half-starved Israeli children undergoing death-by-flies while the "leaders" are living it up. On the contrary, just a few days ago:
"Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert convicted of accepting bribes in Holyland case ..."
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/1.582901
The fundamental question has to be whether any more aid would be put to good use. If, as you say, Africans "can't help themselves", then it would be throwing more money into a latrine (if one could be found). Hardly a bright idea.Quote
And that is general image you see in 95% of rural sub-saharan africa...uniform poverty.
Which problem will not be solved by handouts from anywhere. Especially when most of those get eaten in the capital!QuoteWhen they see that...their human compassion will drive them to do more. Obama has to make them SEE IT. He has to talk ABOUT IT. He has to make sure AFRICA POVERTY is global issue...for people to grapple with..including all the problems you've identified.
Poverty is a global issue; that much is well known. Obama has spoken about it and also in relation to Africa. Is there something in particular you think he should have said but did not?
But the fundamental problem is this: Let us imagine that Obama had, say, a clear 12 months in which he could talk 24/7, 365/per on poverty in Africa. And let us also imagine that the entire US media was equally devoted to portraying grim images of Africa. How would any of that make a difference by way of long-term solutions?
Bella,It IS ridiculous but I've said no such thing. Like I said, Africans must do better and I haven't at all opposed the suggestion. My focus: The idea that the West or the World has no moral responsibility to help. Or that it is wrong for someone to point out that they haven't done what they could have to help. Take the R2P doctrine, for example: You are a believer in R2P, yes? Do you believe the World has no moral responsibility to intervene in the event of imminent genocide if that circumstance has been brought on by those faults you point out, where we can say "it is the fault" of those people for creating the situation? Of course not. Because regardless of the faults/causes, we are each others keeper on a certain level. That there is a duty of Africans to pull their stuff together does not exclude a secondary responsibility of the rest of the World to help. Their duty is not primary. But where the responsible government has failed, they should do what they can. They do a lot because I believe they believe in such responsibility themselves. About Obama,like I said before, I don't know enough to comment though my general impression has been that of Pundit. What works/not, that's not something I can speak on with confidence. My comment here was mainly about the rebuke to Pundit for expecting those most powerful to do something about the situation in Africa. I don't think anything is wrong with that expectation. With great power comes great responsibility, to borrow from a movie, and the fact is those most powerful do have some moral responsibility in a society/community. It is not a legally enforceable duty but it is a moral one.
I see him mention corruption. Vehement defense of leaders charged with mass atrocities. Appointment of sleazebags into cushy jobs...
The suggestion that concern about and insistence on fixing that instead of waiting for outside help is a sign of self hate is ridiculous IMO. That in itself is far more helpful than foreign aid I think.
I see R2P as not applicable in this case. Unless one declares economic crimes among the list of crimes that can lead to suspension of sovereignty. You give up your sovereignty if we are to continue giving you blank checks year in year out even as you continue cocking up or something along those lines.Bella,It IS ridiculous but I've said no such thing. Like I said, Africans must do better and I haven't at all opposed the suggestion. My focus: The idea that the West or the World has no moral responsibility to help. Or that it is wrong for someone to point out that they haven't done what they could have to help. Take the R2P doctrine, for example: You are a believer in R2P, yes? Do you believe the World has no moral responsibility to intervene in the event of imminent genocide if that circumstance has been brought on by those faults you point out, where we can say "it is the fault" of those people for creating the situation? Of course not. Because regardless of the faults/causes, we are each others keeper on a certain level. That there is a duty of Africans to pull their stuff together does not exclude a secondary responsibility of the rest of the World to help. Their duty is not primary. But where the responsible government has failed, they should do what they can. They do a lot because I believe they believe in such responsibility themselves. About Obama,like I said before, I don't know enough to comment though my general impression has been that of Pundit. What works/not, that's not something I can speak on with confidence. My comment here was mainly about the rebuke to Pundit for expecting those most powerful to do something about the situation in Africa. I don't think anything is wrong with that expectation. With great power comes great responsibility, to borrow from a movie, and the fact is those most powerful do have some moral responsibility in a society/community. It is not a legally enforceable duty but it is a moral one.
I see him mention corruption. Vehement defense of leaders charged with mass atrocities. Appointment of sleazebags into cushy jobs...
The suggestion that concern about and insistence on fixing that instead of waiting for outside help is a sign of self hate is ridiculous IMO. That in itself is far more helpful than foreign aid I think.
I see R2P as not applicable in this case. Unless one declares economic crimes among the list of crimes that can lead to suspension of sovereignty. You give up your sovereignty if we are to continue giving you blank checks year in year out even as you continue cocking up or something along those lines.R2P was an analogy. If you believe it, the idea that others don't have a moral responsibility because "it was your fault" goes out the window. You obviously accept that others do have a responsibility on a certain level. Moreover, it has nothing to do with giving up sovereignty, it is not colonialism, it is taking over the responsibility to protect the population when a government goes MIA. I don't buy the battered woman analogy,since we do continue to try and help the woman as far as possible, understanding that a lot can explain the situation besides "she's asking for it". Neither does the "merit for help divorced from accountability" make sense; you are dealing with a highly unenlightened populace. You might as well refuse to help pastoralists dying in famines for not "learning their lesson" their first time and continuing to expect sympathy.
The idea that people can continue to deserve sympathy regardless I don't buy it. Think of a woman, battered repeatedly by her hubby, who keeps going back. You cannot divorce the merit for help from accountability.
The truth is I see Pundit and MOON Ki emphasizing opposite sides of the same coin.
I believe in helping those that merit it. You can always point out exceptions to that rule, but they are few. If a government is corrupt, for 50 years, they don't merit any external help. If the population loves their government, they should lay on the bed they make.I see R2P as not applicable in this case. Unless one declares economic crimes among the list of crimes that can lead to suspension of sovereignty. You give up your sovereignty if we are to continue giving you blank checks year in year out even as you continue cocking up or something along those lines.R2P was an analogy. If you believe it, the idea that others don't have a moral responsibility because "it was your fault" goes out the window. You obviously accept that others do have a responsibility on a certain level. Moreover, it has nothing to do with giving up sovereignty, it is not colonialism, it is taking over the responsibility to protect the population when a government goes MIA. I don't buy the battered woman analogy,since we do continue to try and help the woman as far as possible, understanding that a lot can explain the situation besides "she's asking for it". Neither does the "merit for help divorced from accountability" make sense; you are dealing with a highly unenlightened populace. You might as well refuse to help pastoralists dying in famines for not "learning their lesson" their first time and continuing to expect sympathy.
The idea that people can continue to deserve sympathy regardless I don't buy it. Think of a woman, battered repeatedly by her hubby, who keeps going back. You cannot divorce the merit for help from accountability.
The truth is I see Pundit and MOON Ki emphasizing opposite sides of the same coin.
You might as well refuse to help pastoralists dying in famines for not "learning their lesson" their first time and continuing to expect sympathy.
I believe in helping those that merit it. You can always point out exceptions to that rule, but they are few. If a government is corrupt, for 50 years, they don't merit any external help. If the population loves their government, they should lay on the bed they make.And I simply reject that point of view. I don't know any situation in Africa that can be described so simply as "the population loves their government". Things are far more complicated than that, including ignorance, lack of education, a population helpless against corrupt governments or without many options. So I will continue to assert my point that humans have a responsibility to do what is reasonably within their power to do to help those less fortunate and this is more so the more powerful they are.
On George Bush--He used HEALTH AID to benefit American corporations,for instance you have Africans dying of malaria and Hiv/Aids,bush through USAID wires money to American companies to supply malaria drugs and ARV to Africans,USA corporations benefit in the name of aid which means more revenue for usa gov,
On Obama visit--He clearly stated he has come for infrastructure and security cooperation,He is looking for business for American corporations interms of financing and supplying equipments in projects like energy,ports,roads,security etc etc...you know usa is facing stiff competition from China,
Nobody is here to help Africans,Anybody with such a thought needs to have his head examined,
Without Prejudice.
The usual nonsense as always that is out of topic.
Chinese are helping us while helping their own companies. The US or UK similarly does that.
Africa a continent that is really really poverty stricken.
The debate on Obama visit to kenya is simple.George Bush Jnr has a better legacy in Africa
The usual nonsense as always that is out of topic.
To you of course,because you have scattered knowledge,Chinese are helping us while helping their own companies. The US or UK similarly does that.
What the Chinese or Americans can do,we can do it for ourselves,
You cannot claim the state owned Chinese corporations are helping us through development finance of building inflated rail projects and supplying materials,through local syndicated financing and building local capacity of steel mills,we can do it for ourselves,Africa a continent that is really really poverty stricken.
Yes there are poor Africans but African poverty has been on a continued decline from 47% in 1990 to less than 40% in 2008 while the middle class continues to rise,One of the causes of that poverty was bad leadership and political violence but with political reforms,we will continue to see average rate of poverty decline increase due to stability like we saw in Nigeria elections,Infact some African countries are doing well than Asian countries,The debate on Obama visit to kenya is simple.George Bush Jnr has a better legacy in Africa
What did you want Obama to do and can you give us a comparison with bush?Obama is the president of USA not Africa or Kogelo or should an American president of Irish origin focus more on Ireland than USA?Let the Governor of kogelo and Kenya president uhuru solve our problems,
Back to the main point,You prove to be very stupid on a daily basis with your scattered knowledge,
Obama is coming to Kenya for business from security,energy etc etc not to drink tea with Uhuru and he stated it even in the press statement,and the biggest beneficiary of this visit will be usa corporations the same way they benefited by supplying arvs and other drugs to Africa in the name of aid during bush regime,nothing different,
Without Prejudice.
If you had any knowledge,you would have long completed college (including in third rate university in Uganda) and won't be hawking air time in River road. Please nigga!
Obama is more than the US president. He is the president of the WORLD. He has the power to change the lives of Siaya people...without even twisting his thumb.
What has Obama done in Africa in terms of AID, TRADE, BUSINESS, SECURITY and any other area of cooperation with Africa, Kenya and SIAYA.
The answer is very very little. And compared to recent US presidents like Bush Snr,Clinton and Bush Jrn...it very embarrassing.
If you had any knowledge,you would have long completed college (including in third rate university in Uganda) and won't be hawking air time in River road. Please nigga!
I am a proud year 2 drop our of a third rate university in Somalia and am very proud of it,what do you have to show with your first rate university degree?Why did safaricom appoint a high school graduate bob collymore as ceo not you?are you even an mca,mp or even senator?just a broke drunkard and online heckler who operates a cyber cafe in mlolongo,
You need to streamline your knowledge,Obama is more than the US president. He is the president of the WORLD. He has the power to change the lives of Siaya people...without even twisting his thumb.
How?What can he do that siaya governor and Kenyatta can't do?Be specific,What has Obama done in Africa in terms of AID, TRADE, BUSINESS, SECURITY and any other area of cooperation with Africa, Kenya and SIAYA.
Obama is president not owner of USA,Stop thinking like Moi,USA is ran by institutions and obama can't wake up and start dishing money to kogelo...congress will stop him,Most important...He has not stopped USAID/AID AGOA/BUSINESS or AFRICOM/SECURITY from working,whose total annual grants to Kenya is over 85BN and will continue operating on the end of his time,Obama has not even clamped down on illegal immigrants kenyans included who send billions of dollars annually,
I wish we were talking about AGOA or exploiting low usa interest rates,
Let me remind your head for the third time,Obama has come to solicit business for American cooperations from Kenya gov from financing,energy,roads.ports ict,agriculture,security etc etc,The answer is very very little. And compared to recent US presidents like Bush Snr,Clinton and Bush Jrn...it very embarrassing.
Show the evidence,
Without Prejudice.
Noted. I agree to disagree.I believe in helping those that merit it. You can always point out exceptions to that rule, but they are few. If a government is corrupt, for 50 years, they don't merit any external help. If the population loves their government, they should lay on the bed they make.And I simply reject that point of view. I don't know any situation in Africa that can be described so simply as "the population loves their government". Things are far more complicated than that, including ignorance, lack of education, a population helpless against corrupt governments or without many options. So I will continue to assert my point that humans have a responsibility to do what is reasonably within their power to do to help those less fortunate and this is more so the more powerful they are.
Thanks Bella for intelligently making Moonki and Terminator see how their evil thinking inspired by hatred for political leadership in Africa just has no place in our world. Why blame the victim? The victim of misery,poverty, corruption and bad leadership. Helpless victims i would say. Blame the victim. Complete utter sadism.Obama has failed not just the African but more importantly his own base in the US.
Nobody has asked or demanded Obama WORKS with AFRICA CORRUPT LEADERSHIP. Nobody has asked Obama to wire money through corrupt National treasuries.
We have asked Obama to figure out how really help Africa or the world poor like Bill Gates.
For instance Obama can call a governance on tropical diseases, establish a research fund of 100B dollars, and have thousands looking seriously of the many diseases affecting tropical animals and plants. Obama has power to do that by rallying US gov and rich gov that listen to US...and such fund would not crash US economy. Just look at what Bill Gates is doing rallying the very rich of US to do something.
That is what Bush did with Global fund for HIV, AIDS and TB. Bush Jnr had many such initiatives. And it begin by accepting that Africa faces problems they cannot SURMONT without external help.
Obama has failed. The little we've heard is that he has increased US funding. I say that is BULLSHIET. USAID budget increases annually because it tied to US gov budget that increases annually. So Obama has DONE NOTHING...except an Energy fund (to electricity Africa) he established that hasn't got off ground yet.
The victim of misery, poverty, corruption and bad leadership.
I say that is BULLSHIET. USAID budget increases annually because it tied to US gov budget that increases annually.
Where is Obama signature Global Fund?
Africa's fundamental problems are not going to be solved by any amount of "help", and the sooner Africans get to work instead of counting on endless begging, the better off they will be. I have, for example, given the example of corruption in Kenya. I have yet to hear any of the "help" advocates tell us how more "help" would solve that.I wanted to emphasize sane. Able bodied. Often very well schooled. Abroad. He is not stupid, in spite of insinuations to the contrary.
Cries about blaming the victim are no more than unhelpful emotions. If a seemingly sane man has the habit of standing in the middle of the road and getting hit by cars, one should not merely wait about "oh the poor man!". Instead, he must be told to start using his head. Africa continues to be run down by Africans. Who should take the blame for that?
The African needs to stop seeing himself as some sort of perpetual victim who can never improve his lot.
...except an Energy fund (to electricity Africa) he established that hasn't got off ground yet.
So I will continue to assert my point that humans have a responsibility to do what is reasonably within their power to do to help those less fortunate and this is more so the more powerful they are.
I wanted to emphasize sane. Able bodied. Often very well schooled. Abroad. He is not stupid, in spite of insinuations to the contrary.Huh??
Using new statistical methods, the Vienna-based Wittgenstein Centre for Demography and Global Human Capital has produced some fascinating analysis, which projects education attainment into the future. According to these projections, Kenya’s education landscape is changing rapidly. At the time of Independence, most adult Kenyans had received no formal education. Since then, there have been two statistical watershed moments, and more to come. First, since 1980 the number of Kenyans with primary education has exceeded those with no education; just over a decade later, those with secondary education also exceeded those with none.
Today, a majority of Kenyans have had the benefit of attaining basic education, and almost all children are going to school, except in northern and north-eastern Kenya.
This country has 25 million people above the age of 15. About half of them (13 million) have received primary education (up from 11 million in 2000). But the most rapid increase has been in secondary education. In 2000, Kenya had less than four million people with secondary education. This number has risen to seven million today, and is expected to triple to 20 million by 2035. Tertiary education is also picking up from a low base and by 2020, the number of Kenyans with a university degree is also expected to exceed those without any formal education. Before 2050, there will be a final major cross-over: by 2035, more Kenyans will have received secondary education than primary; Kenya will have 45 million people above the age of 15 (and some 70 million in total) 45 per cent will have completed secondary education, 44 per cent primary education, and six per cent university; and only five per cent of Kenyans will not have had any formal education. Just a few years ago (in 2000) three quarters of Kenyans had no or just primary education (see figure).
@MoonKi, no one has said that the bazungu needs to solve all of the continent's problems. Some will be solved only by father TIME and nothing more, some will be solved by a population growing up and learning, some by divine intervention (or a stroke of good luck for the atheists) in the form of that rare self-sacrificing leadership that comes around ever so rarely in human history, at the "right time". Question for me was whethere despite all this, they should do what they can. You have since said that you believe they should/do have the responsibility, which is why I'm no longer debating you. Of course Bazungu will not/can not/should not change Africa all by themselves, no arguments from me there. Like I said, humans with better fortunes do need to do what is reasonably within their power to do to help those who are much less fortunate. Advocating the opposite approach/principle seems borderline sociopathic to me, which is why I got involved in the thread. Usually, I say away from money/economic/developmental matters and its details; not my forte, though I do learn a lot from reading others.So I will continue to assert my point that humans have a responsibility to do what is reasonably within their power to do to help those less fortunate and this is more so the more powerful they are.
Nothing wrong with that, nor do I see anybody here really disagreeing with that. The point is that what the West or anybody external does to "help" will not make lasting changes until Africans decide to help themselves. In any case, I don't substantial see changes in the "help" merely because it is seen as someone's responsibility, no matter how forcefully the assertion is made. Given that, an approach other than constantly wailing for "help" is required.
On the Al Shabab thread, you write that:
".. .Corruption is a matter of our very survival now.
...
The people who committed corruption in the past are the ones holding us back. We thought having a good document was enough in 2005, 2007, and 2010, but it clearly is not. The problem is our rotten dying culture and we are learning very fast that it is now a matter of life and death."
That problem of Kenya's "survival" and its "rotten dying culture" will never be solved by outsiders, no matter how much "help" is given. Kenyans need to work on such things instead of complaining that Obama is not doing more to help them.
I think we are talking past each other;
We all know Negro is corrupt and probably beyond help.
We also know the West has been helping Africa and successive US presidents have had different ideas of 'helping' Negro
Question is whether Osama has done better at attempting to help Africa than his predecessors or worse
A separate question is whether as a half-Negro he ought to have done 'more'
Moon Ki has styled himself as objective and more free of emotional posts. His main argument is Osama has done more as evidenced by 'increased aid' to Kenia so much that at some point, they could not recruit grant officers/managers fast enough to manage the additional funding'. Could he be kind enough to share with us the US aid trends to Kenia for the past 7 years?
Pundito insists Osama has done nothing. All he needs to be shown is the much Osama has done, how much of that is different from what was done by his predecessors
PS: much as I believe Negro needs 10 lightyears of evilution to turn the continent, I harbor some sense of entitlement from the West, from Osama especially.
Osama has supporters, Negroes because he is negro, Kenian because he is half-Kenian, Luos because he is half Luo, and so forth. It is quite in order to interrogate the value of such support, otherwise it is equally emotional supporting him and his visit on the basis of shared melanin/descent
seems borderline sociopathic to me, which is why I got involved in the thread.
.Moonki is still smarting from the democratic decision of kenyans to elect ICC indicted folks. That is the basis of their argument.
MoonKi, no one has said that the bazungu needs to solve all of the continent's problems. Some will be solved only by father TIME and nothing more, some will be solved by a population growing up and learning, some by divine intervention (or a stroke of good luck for the atheists) in the form of that rare self-sacrificing leadership that comes around ever so rarely in human history, at the "right time". Question for me was whethere despite all this, they should do what they can. You have since said that you believe they should/do have the responsibility, which is why I'm no longer debating you. Of course Bazungu will not/can not/should not change Africa all by themselves, no arguments from me there. Like I said, humans with better fortunes do need to do what is reasonably within their power to do to help those who are much less fortunate. Advocating the opposite approach/principle seems borderline sociopathic to me, which is why I got involved in the thread. Usually, I say away from money/economic/developmental matters and its details; not my forte, though I do learn a lot from reading others.
It took 30 years to convince Kenyans to work for a new constitution. That is hard work, educating an uneducated populace on such a venture but we did it eventually. That takes patience and continually singing to the African, what the civil society do. Until everyone has heard something of a bad law, why that law is bad, why it needs to change etc etc. According to the "let him suffer for his foolishness and not get help" view, the efforts that went into that before it materialized, before the African finally got on board, would be a waste because the slow African kept making poor decisions. I'm sure you don't think so. So why is this different? The same African will need the same patient educating and helping with other areas, it will take time.
...
To put it differently, I think you and Moonki are guilty of impatience with the slow pace of "evolution" and ending up condemning rather than sympathizing with the African's slow progress.
They are as capable as anyone else in the same set of circumstances. And indeed everyone has evolved "at their own pace" sometimes at the great cost of war. Fundamental social changes cannot be engineered at the flick of a light switch, real life is far too complicated. So, yes, short of colonialism, you just have to be patient. You simply have to allow populations to learn and give them the best tools you can. What else would you suggest, besides force/war?It took 30 years to convince Kenyans to work for a new constitution. That is hard work, educating an uneducated populace on such a venture but we did it eventually. That takes patience and continually singing to the African, what the civil society do. Until everyone has heard something of a bad law, why that law is bad, why it needs to change etc etc. According to the "let him suffer for his foolishness and not get help" view, the efforts that went into that before it materialized, before the African finally got on board, would be a waste because the slow African kept making poor decisions. I'm sure you don't think so. So why is this different? The same African will need the same patient educating and helping with other areas, it will take time.
...
To put it differently, I think you and Moonki are guilty of impatience with the slow pace of "evolution" and ending up condemning rather than sympathizing with the African's slow progress.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the argument here seems to be that Africans and simply "evolving" at their own pace and we will just have to accept that time must be allowed for full "evolution". That line of argument raises interesting questions of whether or not Africans are fundamentally as capable as any other human beings on the planet. But we can save that one for later. For now, I have a different question:
What sort of external help do you envisage that would help in that process of "evolution"?
You simply have to allow populations to learn and give them the best tools you can.
If I were to venture a guess, I would say if someone gets many more African children into school and keeps them them there till form four/end of high school, they, whoever they are, will have real impact with ripple political effects in the long term.
I'm guessing this would be those desperately desiring change in Africa. They can be found all over the place, within Africa, the diaspora...powerful departments of powerful nations. By the way, you are reintroducing the debate you said was useless, about all the "shoulds" of helping Africa.You simply have to allow populations to learn and give them the best tools you can.
And who should do this giving?
Does one have to deliver money directly to the corrupt government? How about funding school-building or teachers-training or book/facility-buying directly? I am not in "development" nor work with its agencies but somehow I think that if one really wanted to help, one could find a way to do so, unless there is a dictatorial regime.QuoteIf I were to venture a guess, I would say if someone gets many more African children into school and keeps them them there till form four/end of high school, they, whoever they are, will have real impact with ripple political effects in the long term.
One can try. By the way this reminds me of government folks in Kenya eating money other countries had given to finance free education.
I'm guessing this would be those desperately desiring change in Africa. They can be found all over the place, within Africa, the diaspora...powerful departments of powerful nations. By the way, you are reintroducing the debate you said was useless, about all the "shoulds" of helping Africa.You simply have to allow populations to learn and give them the best tools you can.
And who should do this giving?
Terminator, why are you so convinced that we "love those leaders" so much? Can you not grant that there are other reasons the very uneducated, poor, and unexposed-to-others-ways African may make poor decisions besides this strange idea that the African loves to suffer and hates to be happy?I am going by election returns. The leading candidates are not likely to change much IMO. They thrive in that environment. The people worship them. I honestly can't say if people are suffering. It's kind of mostly subjective. Most Africans look very happy to me.
That line of argument raises interesting questions of whether or not Africans are fundamentally as capable as any other human beings on the planet. But we can save that one for later. For now, I have a different question:
t
What sort of external help do you envisage that would help in that process of "evolution"?
I am not just reintroducing the debate. I was trying to get some clarity in your reasoning and to see its logical conclusion:
(a) If it is people "within Africa", then you are primarily talking about Africans themselves, and in that case we are back to Africans doing for themselves. Which makes it perfectly reasonable to ask just what it is that they are doing for themselves.
(b) Following from (a), I should like to believe that those most "desperately desiring change in Africa" are (or should be) Africans themselves. I have seen little evidence that would lead me to believe that many people outside Africans (except for a few Africans) desperately desire change in Africa. So, on that criteria, right off the bat, much of the external world may be excluded from those who are to provide the "best tools" that would help Africans evolve.
(c) You want to say that it includes "powerful departments of powerful nations" can help in that but you should also maintain that
"I'm not interested in the second question."
It would be nice to see your thoughts are reasoning reach a logically satisfying end.
(d) The point about the diaspora is interesting. How large a change they can actually make is an interesting question, but we can save that for later. What I can say for now is that in places like Kenya many in the diaspora find it difficult because of the endemic corruption that tends to stymie many well-meant efforts.
Do you have evidence that other people have developed more quickly. History should be compulsory. The last I checked the Western world took more than 500 yrs to develop to what they're now. Africa,Latin Americans, Indians and name any poor people in the world will get there with time. Africa in my view and in the view of others is making tremendous progress. That will escape you because you need to understand the historical context and base the Africa started from.
You missed the argument completely.
Bella nailed the moral imperative. Leaving you scampering for anything!
Actually, ALL you are doing is going roundabout the same undisputed points you've been making in response to mine, while strangely expecting that I will not repeat my own points. In essence, you are reintroducing the debate while asking that you be allowed to keep singing the same points that NO ONE has even argued against even as a HINT, while saying we should not make ours because, per your unilateral conclusion, it's "useless" to do so.I'm guessing this would be those desperately desiring change in Africa. They can be found all over the place, within Africa, the diaspora...powerful departments of powerful nations. By the way, you are reintroducing the debate you said was useless, about all the "shoulds" of helping Africa.
I am not just reintroducing the debate. I was trying to get some clarity in your reasoning and to see its logical conclusion:
(a) If it is people "within Africa", then you are primarily talking about Africans themselves, and in that case we are back to Africans doing for themselves. Which makes it perfectly reasonable to ask just what it is that they are doing for themselves.
(b) Following from (a), I should like to believe that those most "desperately desiring change in Africa" are (or should be) Africans themselves. I have seen little evidence that would lead me to believe that many people outside Africans (except for a few Africans) desperately desire change in Africa. So, on that criteria, right off the bat, much of the external world may be excluded from those who are to provide the "best tools" that would help Africans evolve.
(c) You want to say that it includes "powerful departments of powerful nations" can help in that but you should also maintain that
"I'm not interested in the second question."
It would be nice to see your thoughts are reasoning reach a logically satisfying end.
(d) The point about the diaspora is interesting. How large a change they can actually make is an interesting question, but we can save that for later. What I can say for now is that in places like Kenya many in the diaspora find it difficult because of the endemic corruption that tends to stymie many well-meant efforts.
You are dismissing it by saying they "won't do it" so lets not discuss it.
...
The West has been helping, so I don't even think the premises of your dismissal is established.
You decided he had no right to point that out because
Lets be clear: No one is absolving the African of his duty to help himself.
You are arguing things no one is denying. No. It certainly will not take 500 years to develop. 200 years ago, bazungu were not where we are now, especially in Europe. Immediately after independence, Africa was ensnared in all sorts of wars, for three decades. It has only been since the 90s that that phase has been coming to an end, the reason for all the positive indicators of growth that development analysts have been noting throughout the 2,000s. Certainly, Africa will be radically different in 2050. Almost all the population will be educated, institutions will be more mature, infrastructure far more improved and regional integration more complete as more tarrifs drop and borders open. It certainly will not take 500 years, but neither will it take two decades like you seem to expect is the only way.Do you have evidence that other people have developed more quickly. History should be compulsory. The last I checked the Western world took more than 500 yrs to develop to what they're now. Africa,Latin Americans, Indians and name any poor people in the world will get there with time. Africa in my view and in the view of others is making tremendous progress. That will escape you because you need to understand the historical context and base the Africa started from.
I'm afraid that is all rather sloppy thinking. It is the essence of a lame argument that I heard a couple of decades ago and which I didn't think people still trotted out.
First, without getting into any definition of "development", it assume that development occurs at the same linear rate. In the way you think, one of the implications would be that Africans will always be "500 years" behind the West; after all, they started "500 years" behind, and the West is not exactly sitting idle. Try to read history as more than just "this happened when" and "that person did this and that when"; try to get a deeper understanding.
Today your African will go to school and university and come to grasp with law, medicine, technology, systems of governance, etc. that took the West hundreds of years to develop; it is not necessary that the African himself go through the same process and same hundreds of years. The argument that "the West took so long, so therefore!" would make sense only if Africa was totally isolated from the rest of the world and "starting from scratch".
A second point is that I don't know exactly what sort of history you have been reading. I would urge you to look well beyond the sort of stuff that they dish out in your typical primary school curriculum. In particular, if you wish to argue that, somehow, Africa has long been behind Europe and needs "500 years" or whatever, then I would urge you to take a better look at broader history what sorts of systems Africans had and when they had them.
Let us consider some concrete cases of things that I would like to see in what I would consider "human development". I will take Kenya as my example:
(a) Food: "At the national level, 35 percent of children under five years are stunted, 16 percent are underweight, and 7 percent are wasted. While the levels of wasting and stunting have remained almost constant in the last 20 years: between 6 percent and 7 percent for wasting and 30 percent and 35 percent for stunting, there has been a slight decline in underweight from 22 percent in 1993 to 16 percent in 2008." http://globalnutritionreport.org/2014/07/18/the-nutrition-paradox-in-kenya/
Those are grim figures. And they are in addition to what happens with the perpetual cycle of famine and begging for food.
Now, Kenya has land and there is nothing magical about irrigation, large-scale agriculture, and so on. Nothing that cannot be learned from those who have done it right. So, what is it that required hundreds of years?
(b) Health: That many Kenyans do not have a place to shit is tremendously costly to the country---easily preventable diseases, deaths among the young. The financial costs in one year actually greatly exceeds what it would take to provide the right facilities. (And the provision of clean drinking water is another similar issue.)
Dealing with the problem is not something that requires hundreds of years of development. It can be done right now if the will is there.
(c) Corruption: I cannot add to how Bella has already described it. Again, there is nothing magical that would be required to deal with it. We know how other countries have dealt with it, and there is no reason why we cannot learn from them and aply the lessons if we wish to.
I want to urge people like you to give up this idea that the African is some backward and helpless unfortunate victim whose best hope is to wait for evolution to do its thing. As you go around your daily life, enjoying the products, in whatever form, of hundreds of years of Western "development": (a) reflect on the fact that you don't have to go through much of that "development" because the products have been handed to you; (b) you should then reflect on how best to use all that to improve the African lot.
MoonKi, yes we will celebrate. You know what? I celebrated the very moment I heard it, call me African. The most powerful "African" on the planet is coming home, as an African, somehow that feels like a big reason. Still, I don't think it is a sin to expect much from this particular son of ours. I understand the frustration of others and the criticism does makes sense to me. Back in grad school, my group of African friends from all over the continent had the same sentiments as Pundit regarding Obama. Its still not enough for me to disown Obama though, and I have serious beef with him over what I view as his unnecessary wars with Christians in his own country and such. Well, the man IS black. For a reason I can't logically explain, that makes a huge difference to me. Perhaps I need evolution myself.You are dismissing it by saying they "won't do it" so lets not discuss it.
...
The West has been helping, so I don't even think the premises of your dismissal is established.
Actually nowhere have I said that the West has not been helping. In fact, I have repeatedly (on this and other thread) pointed out the enormous help that has come from USAID alone, far more than has been suggested.
What I have argued is that all such external help will not produce long-lasting positive change. For that all that one has to do is look at 50 years of foreign aid.
I have no problems with the idea of discussing the West's "moral obligation" to help. Nor have I suggested that we not discuss it. Mine has been to argue that people should not have too much expectation in it.QuoteYou decided he had no right to point that out because
I decided no such thing. I was simply presenting my side of the argument.QuoteLets be clear: No one is absolving the African of his duty to help himself.
I'm glad to hear that, and it does imply that we have reached some sort of common ground. We shall now leave it for him to get on with it.
Is Obama's visiting Kenya something to celebrate? That too can be argued over endlessly, but the fact is this: when he visits, Kenyans will celebrate like nobody's business.
(b) Health: That many Kenyans do not have a place to shit is tremendously costly to the country---easily preventable diseases, deaths among the young. The financial costs in one year actually greatly exceeds what it would take to provide the right facilities. (And the provision of clean drinking water is another similar issue.)
Dealing with the problem is not something that requires hundreds of years of development. It can be done right now if the will is there.
(c) Corruption: I cannot add to how Bella has already described it. Again, there is nothing magical that would be required to deal with it. We know how other countries have dealt with it, and there is no reason why we cannot learn from them and aply the lessons if we wish to.
I want to urge people like you to give up this idea that the African is some backward and helpless unfortunate victim whose best hope is to wait for evolution to do its thing. As you go around your daily life, enjoying the products, in whatever form, of hundreds of years of Western "development": (a) reflect on the fact that you don't have to go through much of that "development" because the products have been handed to you; (b) you should then reflect on how best to use all that to improve the African lot.
Not just Kenya but Africa as a whole has seen tremendous improvement over the last 50years...Africa is not a sea of poverty or hell as negativity based people want to label it..poverty has reduced,education has improved,health has improved,governance has improved,infrastructure is improving...everything is on an upward momentum,Of course there are problems but they will continue to be solved with time...Picking data randomly from everywhere to demonize Africa doesn't make sense,one has to factor historical trends and future projections to monitor how Africa is doing,Its doing and will continue to do great,
Without Prejudice.
Let me add. Some of the problems that are troubling Moonki and Windy City eventually solves themselves on their own. Take corruption for instance. In kenya right now it's everywhere from households, to small business, to private sector and to gov, nearly everyone is trying to cut corners or bribe or steal. If you look at it from Moonki ivory tower you may despair..but evidence from history shows that corruption eventually solves itself on IT OWN. As income levels rises, then people become more and more ethical.Pundit,Not just Kenya but Africa as a whole has seen tremendous improvement over the last 50years...Africa is not a sea of poverty or hell as negativity based people want to label it..poverty has reduced,education has improved,health has improved,governance has improved,infrastructure is improving...everything is on an upward momentum,Of course there are problems but they will continue to be solved with time...Picking data randomly from everywhere to demonize Africa doesn't make sense,one has to factor historical trends and future projections to monitor how Africa is doing,Its doing and will continue to do great,
Without Prejudice.
Pundit,
Come on. That just isn't true. Botswana has tackled corruption before incomes rose. So has Rwanda if reports are to be believed.
Conversely it is experiencing a resurgence in South Africa which has had relatively higher incomes. It does not go away on its own.
I think Botswana,Namibia and Southern Africa countries have corruption level that matches their income level. Rwanda is dictatorship misnomer really where I am not sure anything Kagame is doing is sustainable or not. The country is in a grip of fear.That model is not replicable.I just mentioned Botswana as an example of a country with historically low levels of corruption that had nothing to with high income. I am not saying that is why it is doing relatively well - though it might be an important factor. There are many factors.
That theory that corruption eventually goes away on it's own is solid. You won't believe it but that is what happened in Britain (I have read a lot about their history) and nearly every country.
And I do hope you're not alleging Botwsana has done well because it less corrupt. Botswana hit a natural jackpot in Diamond and other minerals. Unlike populous Nigeria, Botswana was luckly a desert country with very few people, so the everyone got a big pie, enough to be contented, nice, ethical and happy.Pundit,
Come on. That just isn't true. Botswana has tackled corruption before incomes rose. So has Rwanda if reports are to be believed.
Conversely it is experiencing a resurgence in South Africa which has had relatively higher incomes. It does not go away on its own.
evidence from history shows that corruption eventually solves itself on IT OWN.
Huh? MoonKi, I am Kenyan. What gives you the impression I'm anything else? I'm Gusii.
Really? Interesting. But we need not dwell on the claimed "evidence from history". If you are right, then the most important thing is to get the message out to Kenyans in Kenya because many seem to be in despair over the vice.
And Kenyans elsewhere also worry about it. Even here, Bella (who, as far as I can tell, is not in Kenya) has written that"
"Corruption is a matter of our very survival now. ... It just is no longer sustainable, this corruption. Even for people used to corruption like Kenyans. We will collapse ... The problem is our rotten dying culture and we are learning very fast that it is now a matter of life and death."
Regarding my "ivory tower": If those who suffer most from corruption choose to believe (or can be made to believe) that it will, somehow, just solve itself, then that's just great for them! All I can do is wish them well and hope that the "evolution" will not take too long. Still, I am inclined to believe that they would be better off tackling it assiduously, and, accordingly, most of my comments on the matter will generally be to that end.
I also have similar sentiments in other matters: If the majority of Africans feel that the continent has undergone "tremendous improvement" and is no longer "a sea of poverty", then I think that's just great and wonderful. Fantastic stuff! What matters is that people are happy, and shrinks say that a positive attitude is always very helpful. But, again, I have one or two small doubts, here and there, and many of my general comments will tend to reflect that. Negligible stuff, really.
What Kagame is doing is the only way corruption can be tamed. When the personal price is too high. It's part of human nature. If you can just take, why work for it?
Haven't we not passed death sentence for any robbery with violence and yet it doesn't seem to deter criminals.What for example will you suggest will end low level endemic corruption in Police dept. This has been the star in matters corruption. If you fire and replace with a new team, there is nearly 100% likelihood the new crop will be equally corrupt.You raise a good point. Yet one cannot ignore the characteristics of the protagonists. Different dynamics in play.
In short some of this things need time.
What Kagame is doing is the only way corruption can be tamed. When the personal price is too high. It's part of human nature. If you can just take, why work for it?
You raise a good point. Yet one cannot ignore the characteristics of the protagonists. Different dynamics in play.
The robbery with violence types are usually so desperate that even certainty of lynching is not a deterrent. That type of thing is what goes down with economic growth.
On the other hand, the Anglo-leasing/Goldenberg types will be deterred by a simple long prison sentence and asset freezes. They are not poor. They will stop if corruption becomes unrewarding. By carrying a heavy price.
If you lock up a Kidero, a Chahonyo, to pick random examples, for 50 years, they are going to change.
I agree that the greedy type (not the desperate type) will stop if we mess with risk-reward matrix. I am not sure why that hasn't happened yet. Perhaps these cases are hard to proof or our criminal systems is equally corrupt?Because that depends on having functional institutions. That or a dictator who hates theft ala Kagame. Thing is, institutions depend on/are built on the strength of the underlying culture. You have a population still with so many poor and desperate, as Africa most assuredly does, with such a disproportionately few "educated" verses a majority of people merely dependent on trust to make political decisions (Hence the strength of the "my man from the village is better than the "outsider"" approach to politics; Because 80% of our people, like it or not, very much depend on someone to tell them what is or is not a good political move/where to go. This is why the tribal king pin is truly king or shaman, if you will. You therefore need something extra to hold up the institutions as you cant rely on public accountability. Even China is corrupt but manages to control it via dictatorship somewhat.
Because that depends on having functional institutions. That or a dictator who hates theft ala Kagame. Thing is, institutions depend on/are built on the strength of the underlying culture. You have a population still with so many poor and desperate, as Africa most assuredly does, with such a disproportionately few "educated" verses a majority of people merely dependent on trust to make political decisions (Hence the strength of the "my man from the village is better than the "outsider"" approach to politics; Because 80% of our people, like it or not, very much depend on someone to tell them what is or is not a good political move/where to go. This is why the tribal king pin is truly king or shaman, if you will. You therefore need something extra to hold up the institutions as you cant rely on public accountability. Even China is corrupt but manages to control it via dictatorship somewhat. We won't go the dictatorship way as the dictator is likely to be the biggest looter of them all; benevolent dictatorships are something of a myth in most cases. This is what takes patience, as the only way to do it is to slowly train the public quite literally how to "think"/ "calculate" politically, which is quite the task. Why I have great respect for civil society. The media used to be good too in filling that gap and letting the people know just what was being done to them and why it was a very bad thing, but lately, I don't know what happened there either.
I agree that the greedy type (not the desperate type) will stop if we mess with risk-reward matrix. I am not sure why that hasn't happened yet. Perhaps these cases are hard to proof or our criminal systems is equally corrupt?It takes political will from the top. Not necessarily a dictator. kamwana can kick start it just by firing those CSs and PSs named in the EACC list and some more. The other allegedly independent people like DPP will take their cue and move fast.You raise a good point. Yet one cannot ignore the characteristics of the protagonists. Different dynamics in play.
The robbery with violence types are usually so desperate that even certainty of lynching is not a deterrent. That type of thing is what goes down with economic growth.
On the other hand, the Anglo-leasing/Goldenberg types will be deterred by a simple long prison sentence and asset freezes. They are not poor. They will stop if corruption becomes unrewarding. By carrying a heavy price.
If you lock up a Kidero, a Chahonyo, to pick random examples, for 50 years, they are going to change.
It takes political will from the top. Not necessarily a dictator. kamwana can kick start it just by firing those CSs and PSs named in the EACC list and some more. The other allegedly independent people like DPP will take their cue and move fast.In other words, trusting the leader to be good. Simply doesn't happen with the political type, except the rare once-in-a-blue moon historical figure like the Abraham Lincoln's, Mandelas of History or American founding fathers. As you point out, it ultimately falls on the public to hold up institutions, not the politician on top who can almost always be counted on to be selfish. And if the public isn't equipped to do that, what one who cares about the continent can do is concentrate on that via civic education, formal education, and ventures that lift more and more people out of poverty in spite of the leadership.
As it is, there is just no political will. Kenyans know that and since they continue to back the same cast, it seems like they are fine with it.
I think you misunderstood it ...
So corruption doesn't go away on it's own...
evidence from history shows that corruption eventually solves itself on IT OWN.
That's what I used to think. Me I think integrity you either value it or you value other things, like tribe, more.It takes political will from the top. Not necessarily a dictator. kamwana can kick start it just by firing those CSs and PSs named in the EACC list and some more. The other allegedly independent people like DPP will take their cue and move fast.In other words, trusting the leader to be good. Simply doesn't happen with the political type, except the rare once-in-a-blue moon historical figure like the Abraham Lincoln's, Mandelas of History or American founding fathers. As you point out, it ultimately falls on the public to hold up institutions, not the politician on top who can almost always be counted on to be selfish. And if the public isn't equipped to do that, what one who cares about the continent can do is concentrate on that via civic education, formal education, and ventures that lift more and more people out of poverty in spite of the leadership.
As it is, there is just no political will. Kenyans know that and since they continue to back the same cast, it seems like they are fine with it.
Also apart from civil society raising awareness and generally making some noises, this I think is where MoonKi Western Allies can really help. Most of the grand corruptions happen internationally.Obama can make a name for himself by going for them in US, in Europe and in any of those financial hubs where the money get stashed...it easy for them to seize the assets of the corrupt...as illegal proceeds and remit back to Africa.
Really? If that so, then my bad. But in my "defence", I should say was responding to a sentence written by one RV Pundit, who even went to the trouble to capitalize "its own", and which does not appear to be particular difficult sentence to understand.
This one:Quoteevidence from history shows that corruption eventually solves itself on IT OWN.
First: Obama's government has in fact been doing something about that and in 2010 took a step that no previous US government had taken: the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative. And they are using it in novel ways: no matter where the money is, if it went through a US financial institution, they will go after it.
Here are a couple of examples of the initiative in action:
"The Department of Justice has frozen more than $458 million in corruption proceeds hidden in bank accounts around the world by former Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha and conspirators. A civil forfeiture complaint unsealed today in the United States District Court in the District of Columbia seeks recovery of more than $550 million in connection with the largest kleptocracy forfeiture action brought in the department’s history."
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-freezes-more-458-million-stolen-former-nigerian-dictator-largest-kleptocracy-forfeiture
"Last week, the son and heir-apparent to the president of Equatorial Guinea agreed to give up $34 million in assets as part of a settlement with the U.S. government over corruption claims. This was the latest attack by the Department of Justice’s Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative."
http://www.compliancebuilding.com/2014/10/20/kleptocracy-asset-recovery-initiative/
---
Second: It is far from easy to just go out and grab the stolen assets. Many of those countries where the stolen money is stashed have functional legal systems that require some proof that the money was stolen. There mere fact that everyone and his dog "knows" that it was stolen and "knows" who the identity of the alleged thief are not enough.
- The thieves have the sort of money to buy the kind of lawyers (in those same countries) that will give the government a hard tackle.
- More importantly, the concrete evidence required to support a case usually has to come from the country that was robbed, and too often that country will not supply the information. Do we, for example, expect the current GoK to provide evidence that would corner Moi?
Moi is in fact a good example---very good example:
(a) The current Anglo-Leasing nonsense in Kenyan courts, which will go nowhere, is in fact a smokescreen to convince the Swiss that Kenya is serious about Anglo Leasing. And why is that smokescreen necessary? Because the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland is after Moi's criminally obtained money:
http://star.worldbank.org/corruption-cases/node/18486
It remains to be seen whether or not the Swiss will be fooled. Even if they wanted to look aside, Obama's US government has made it clear that it will no longer accept Swiss banks doing "business as usual".
It is very important to keep in mind that the current Anglo-Leasing "heat" in Kenya is not the result of GoK suddenly deciding to do the right thing. Nor is merely the fact that the Swiss have suddenly realized that they banked stolen money from Kenya. One should look at the heat that the USA has been putting on the Swiss folks, on many fronts.
(b) What is the current GoK attitude to tackling Moi? One can get an idea in the US tribunal matter concerning World Duty Free. GoK had an interesting line in that one. According to its lawyers, GoK had every right to screw World Duty Free because Moi had eaten money in the deal and Kenyan law (being upright!) insists on not supporting criminal activities. The tribunal, quite naturally was astounded:
"It remains nonetheless a highly disturbing feature in this case that the corrupt recipient of the Claimant's bribe was more than an officer of the State but its most senior officer, the Kenyan President; and that it is Kenya which is here advancing as a complete defence to the Claimant's [World Duty Free's] claims the illegalities of its own former President."
http://star.worldbank.org/corruption-cases/node/18487
-----
Third: Even when the money has been seized by others, it is not necessarily easy to return it.
-- Sometimes those whose money has been stolen will not ask to get it back because that would mean admitting that currently powerful people are thieves. Nigeria, for example, has sometimes shown that it would rather cut deals with the thieves than try to get back all of its stolen money that has been recovered.
-- The current US government seems to believe that simply returning stolen money so that it can be re-stolen is not helpful; they would prefer to know (i) what will be done to the thieves, and (ii) how the stolen money will be used. For that reason, I don't see the USA quickly returning the money they have cornered. On (ii), last I heard, the Nigerian had paid some fancy lawyers & associated types to suggest that it could be given to a US NGO or some similar lot in Nigeria to spend wisely.
The Nigerian "public" too seems to have its doubts about simply returning the money; they have been there before:
"Despite its inability to adequately explain how the more than $500 million Sani Abacha loot recovered from Swiss authorities was spent, the Federal Government has filed an application at a Washington DC District Court requesting that another $500 million (N75 billion) stolen by the late military dictator, recently frozen by the United States Department of Justice, be repatriated to the country.
In February, the Minister of Finance, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, said the money recovered from Switzerland was used for rural development projects but failed to name specific projects the money was used for."
http://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/161251-nigeria-asks-u-s-return-500-million-abacha-loot-country.html
I support the USA on this one: as long as Nigeria goes there begging for aid, why burden US taxpayers? Might as well give them Nigerian money.
Maybe I assumed you'd understood the context. Maybe in the future..I need to really do more [I have to admit, I am too lazy]. But you get the point..corruption like any vice...is a by-product of poverty and as people become wealthy and as opportunities increase with economic growth..there is less incentive..to steal.
MOON Ki,Maybe I assumed you'd understood the context. Maybe in the future..I need to really do more [I have to admit, I am too lazy]. But you get the point..corruption like any vice...is a by-product of poverty and as people become wealthy and as opportunities increase with economic growth..there is less incentive..to steal.
In general, I would not dispute that the better the economy, the less the corruption; there certainly is enough strong evidence to suggest that. But the evidence seems to be complicated, and I am not sure that there is, as yet a "definitive" understanding. For example, a very basic question is this:
Let us suppose, as indeed the evidence suggests, that corruption is related to the economy; for example, that as the economy improves, the less the corruption. Has the economic improvement come about because of less corruption, or has the corruption gone down because of a better economy?
(One of the things that interests me about Kenya's projected economic growth is not that it has happened despite corruption, but how much better it would be without corruption.)
Two "extreme" cases to consider in such a case (and one may compare the first one with Botswana):
(1) Equatorial Guinea has a very small population, natural resources coming out of every pore and hole, and by GDP (PPP) is among the richest in Africa. (Off the top of my head, in the top 3.) Yet it consistently ranks amongst the most corrupt places in the world.
- That raises the question of wealth distribution, but that's another variable.
(2) China is the great economic story of our times. But take a look at Chinese history:
- Taking a random period, corruption in China in the 17th and 18th centuries was of a nature to make Kenya/Nigeria/etc. look like school-kids.
(One of the interesting things about Chinese history is that they invented/discovered things that they did bugger-all with but which the West then "upgraded".)
- China's economic rise has gone hand-in-hand with a severe and unprecedented crackdown on corruption. I am not aware of anything quite like it in Chinese history.
Curiously---and I don't claim its of direct relevance---the Chinese leaders listened to a lot of what Lee Kwan Yew had to say. And on such matters, he was very direct: swift justice---fines, jail, and caning. (He was especially particular about caning as a way getting even high-flyers to directly & literally feel the pain. Brought them down to earth or something.)
I agree that US, UK and Swiss have been doing a commendable job from Angloleasing to Gicheru to CMC to ChickenGate.
That assumes too much. That the man in the village (or the man with the village firmly in him) who is 8 out of 10 of the people in the voting queue on election day has some decent understanding of how this affects his life (beyond knowing that is simply does), that he knows precisely how to sort the hype from the facts. Or that he has many other good options besides the names that show up on the ballot paper. There is simply no evidence to assume such a thing, quite the contrary in fact. Respecting the will of the people means not violently throwing out those declared winners by the designated authority; it doesnt mean assuming that the African knows more than what he clearly does not now; or assuming that if he knew better, he would prefer poverty and a hard life over an easier one. In other words, respecting the will of the people and refusing to be involved have nothing to do with each other.In other words, trusting the leader to be good. Simply doesn't happen with the political type, except the rare once-in-a-blue moon historical figure like the Abraham Lincoln's, Mandelas of History or American founding fathers. As you point out, it ultimately falls on the public to hold up institutions, not the politician on top who can almost always be counted on to be selfish. And if the public isn't equipped to do that, what one who cares about the continent can do is concentrate on that via civic education, formal education, and ventures that lift more and more people out of poverty in spite of the leadership.That's what I used to think. Me I think integrity you either value it or you value other things, like tribe, more.
In any case, I am convinced not everybody has to be the same. One has to respect the will of the people at some point.
For example, lets take the Kikuyus (This is not just Kikuyus but ALL Kenyans, including Luos, but lets use them as an example).
I have met more than a few Kikuyus who DEEPLY believe that Raila intends to carry out some sort of genocide against them once he grabs a hold of power. That he is "dangerous", much like many Americans' attitude towards Vladimir Putin. In fact, part of the reason I was (still am) for Raila is that I really wanted this foolish myth, so religioulsy held, to be proved false once and for all, so that "the tribes" could move on. Many ordinary Kikuyus believe---very sincerely---that they must do everything within their power to make sure that he never smells the chance of oppressing them. From an objective stand point, Raila is no saint, but clearly a better choice against someone then indicted for crimes against humanity, if for no other reason than integrity, right? An easy choice, you would think. Uhuru is automatically out. But... not so fast. How does the voting Kikuyu see the PEV? Uhuru is a hero to so many of them, he defended Kikuyus when no one else would fight for them. I dont know how many times I heard that line before the election. But enough to know the belief is very powerful. For the Kikuyu loyally lining up on election day, this election is about trusting his future to a person who (he believes) "put his neck out there" for them vs the one who desires their destruction. A rational choice for this person is clearly the former. For those who dont buy that Uhuru is hero, there is a big portion who believes STOPPING the person who intends to wipe them out or at least oppress them or destroy their businesses as a matter of "revenge" is far more important than anything else. These happen to be the majority. As far as they know, yes: Peter Kenneth, Martha Karua et al,are probably better choices than Uhuru, but will they STOP their menace? On that one count, they fail, and Uhuru gets all the votes with full committment.
For many other tribes, the choice is about "those greedy, selfish Kikuyus" verses the ONLY one who has a real chance at getting them out of power and giving others a chance to be helped too, hence, nearly all their votes go to Raila.
For both these camps, it is not that integrity doesnt matter. It is that there is a "bigger fight" immediately demanding their efforts. It is that "all that will be tackled" once we get this "obstacle/menace" whatever---sorted. First, we get our people (who are the "right" or trustworthy ones in relative terms, per this thinking) in the right places, then they can sort the problems.
I just dont see how this should translate to voters wilfully choosing corruption/looting versus voters being lied to. It is a matter of who they believe IS the cause of it or a BIGGER danger and what they think the solution is or how to get to it. Which is why enlightening them is the only way to help them reason differently when it comes to elections. I have never met a Kenyan who happily chooses to support corruption in government, they are always complaining. Every. Single. One. That I have ever spoken to. Even the mama in the village. No one likes it. But politicians have managed to spin narratives that are very powerful for these people. A person who is deeply identified with his community and not educated is vulnerable to such spins. Sure, there are "educated" who act no better. But in my view, the proportion is far smaller.
I think the narrative that "Raila is dangerous" or "Kikuyus are greedy" is a ruse that you should not fall for or waste time analyzing. The situation here is an ethnically divided society having to deal with competitive democracy.This is true everywhere including in the USA (although of course the whites are dominant majority). Democracy here becomes the "devil" because it then makes the division more intense, lead to PEV and even genocide. In that part Moi was right to oppose multi-party democracy (which soon morph into multi-ethnic democracy) but then without it; you have dictatorship, coups and possibly worse.Possibly true, but my hunch is that the secondary educated (not phds, who tend to be cynical) will prefer the Peter Kenneths and Karuas of their own tribes over the kideros, kabogos, etc. In other words, racism doesnt go away, but the calibre of leaders the race prefers tends to improve. Education will not make us less tribalist/racist, but it will change which ones of our kinsmen we respect.
The solution is not Enlightenment or Awareness or name it because PHD holders from tribe A shares the same sentiments with a farmer in tribe A.This is pure tribal or ethnic or racial competition for power.That is the curse of democracy in a multi-ethnic or heterogeneous society....democracy will just keep dividing people up.
The solution is to FIX democracy by ensuring winner-take-all is done away with...and by ensuring very deeper levels of devolution or federalism.
Every tribe must form their own goverment within the large gov through devolution and federalism....and those gov must be powerful enough to guard against the national gov by some tribe marganilazing or oppressing other tribes.
I think the narrative that "Raila is dangerous" or "Kikuyus are greedy" is a ruse that you should not fall for or waste time analyzing. The situation here is an ethnically divided society having to deal with competitive democracy.This is true everywhere including in the USA (although of course the whites are dominant majority). Democracy here becomes the "devil" because it then makes the division more intense, lead to PEV and even genocide. In that part Moi was right to oppose multi-party democracy (which soon morph into multi-ethnic democracy) but then without it; you have dictatorship, coups and possibly worse.
The solution is not Enlightenment or Awareness or name it because PHD holders from tribe A shares the same sentiments with a farmer in tribe A.This is pure tribal or ethnic or racial competition for power.That is the curse of democracy in a multi-ethnic or heterogeneous society....democracy will just keep dividing people up.
The solution is to FIX democracy by ensuring winner-take-all is done away with...and by ensuring very deeper levels of devolution or federalism.
Possibly true, but my hunch is that the secondary educated (not phds, who tend to be cynical) will prefer the Peter Kenneths and Karuas of their own tribes over the kideros, kabogos, etc. In other words, racism doesnt go away, but the calibre of leaders the race prefers tends to improve. Education will not make us less tribalist/racist, but it will change which ones of our kinsmen we respect.
Of course the higher the levels of the education, the better choices people will make including political choices,however it still will be our better ethnic leader..and the division and hatred btw tribes won't subside..and most popular national politicians will be those that can take advantage or engineer ethnic division and the hatred.Indeed, without a doubt, devolution is paramount for inter/multi-ethnic societies. It takes the "zing" out of the power of the narrative that the politician "campaigns" on, which is always based on (often manufactured) competition between groups. I think as more devolution happens and education spreads, even the national politics will change, simply because "the narrative" will not have so much power anymore. Indeed, even the tribalism will go down, even if not completely.
If we have federal republic of kenya where each tribe or communities are essentially running their affairs except those they cannot (like the Army, Foreign Affairs, National Infrastructure) then slowly people will focus on the REAL ISSUES without the red-herring.Possibly true, but my hunch is that the secondary educated (not phds, who tend to be cynical) will prefer the Peter Kenneths and Karuas of their own tribes over the kideros, kabogos, etc. In other words, racism doesnt go away, but the calibre of leaders the race prefers tends to improve. Education will not make us less tribalist/racist, but it will change which ones of our kinsmen we respect.
Indeed, without a doubt, devolution is paramount for inter/multi-ethnic societies. It takes the "zing" out of the power of the narrative that the politician "campaigns" on, which is always based on (often manufactured) competition between groups. I think as more devolution happens and education spreads, even the national politics will change, simply because "the narrative" will not have so much power anymore. Indeed, even the tribalism will go down, even if not completely.
Excellent points,
Where I differ is the idea that federalism can solve tribalism; if we had some tidy distribution of tribes in equally endowed regions, then it may work. This is far from reality. Maasais can probably live off Mara but what about Pokots?
Lowering the stakes in the national elections makes them less competitive but as long as it is the ultimate prize in democracy, tribe will always be a factor.
I have given up on tribe, am more worried about corruption, just hope the government of the day is less corrupt than the one before it
Bella,That assumes too much. That the man in the village (or the man with the village firmly in him) who is 8 out of 10 of the people in the voting queue on election day has some decent understanding of how this affects his life (beyond knowing that is simply does), that he knows precisely how to sort the hype from the facts. Or that he has many other good options besides the names that show up on the ballot paper. There is simply no evidence to assume such a thing, quite the contrary in fact. Respecting the will of the people means not violently throwing out those declared winners by the designated authority; it doesnt mean assuming that the African knows more than what he clearly does not now; or assuming that if he knew better, he would prefer poverty and a hard life over an easier one. In other words, respecting the will of the people and refusing to be involved have nothing to do with each other.In other words, trusting the leader to be good. Simply doesn't happen with the political type, except the rare once-in-a-blue moon historical figure like the Abraham Lincoln's, Mandelas of History or American founding fathers. As you point out, it ultimately falls on the public to hold up institutions, not the politician on top who can almost always be counted on to be selfish. And if the public isn't equipped to do that, what one who cares about the continent can do is concentrate on that via civic education, formal education, and ventures that lift more and more people out of poverty in spite of the leadership.That's what I used to think. Me I think integrity you either value it or you value other things, like tribe, more.
In any case, I am convinced not everybody has to be the same. One has to respect the will of the people at some point.
likes of MOON Ki wont send their peasantry folks some cash coz we will drink it up just like Obama .... why not pay school fees, send Nakumatt vouchers which we can't liquidate, build an apartment and make a relative a caretaker and pay him/her a salary
I can support the argument that corruption solves itself .....
Moon Ki and Termie,I think so. I tend to lean center left if that helps clarify anything.
Is there such a thing as OVER-reliance on your own government to lift you out of your mire?
Moon Ki and Termie,
Is there such a thing as OVER-reliance on your own government to lift you out of your mire?
Moon Ki and Termie,
Is there such a thing as OVER-reliance on your own government to lift you out of your mire?
I couldn't have put it better. About the question of over-reliance on an entity that is essentially a vessel for robbing the population.Moon Ki and Termie,
Is there such a thing as OVER-reliance on your own government to lift you out of your mire?
Interesting question. I'll have to give it some thought before I can give a "proper" answer.
My "preliminary" view is this:
* It is hard to imagine in a country that is not well-off or that is not well-run. The average Kenyan, say, might go on endlessly with serikali saidia, but I doubt that he really relies much on the government.
* As I see it, the government's job is to make sure that certain essentials---healthcare, education, security, and so on---are taken care of and to ensure an environment in which people can best help themselves. If, as is the case in quite a few African countries, the government is not doing that, then the notion of "over-reliance" should not even arise.
* There are many countries in which the citizens get on with life despite the government; in fact, in some places their lot includes an ongoing struggle against the government. Again, in such cases, "over-reliance" does not even begin to enter into the equation.
That is good one. Kenya gov if we go by taxes they collect; should only be responsible for 25% of GDP; if we throw in loans and grants; maybe 40%! That leave us as private citizen doing the rest of the job of pulling ourself out of the mostly self inflicted quagmire.
Look at it this way:- without Obama at the helm in January 2009, American history would have been differnt, not just in its details but in its larger outlines. Here's what one should be looking at:
1. What was the state of the US economy in January 2009. Unsolicited answer: in the tank, in the doldrums, hemmoraging like crazy. The national debt skyrocketing, and the deficit in freefall.
2. Two wars that Obama inherited from George W., a man who should have cut our losses early in Afghanistan and never invaded Iraq. Later still, felt the need to begin nation building and the quest to democratise "Eye-raq," couldn't finish his misguided misadventures, thus being the principal causes of point 1 above. Plus the shenanigans in Wall Street through most of the 2000s prior to Obama; enter obama and his enforcement of new and rigorous banking and finance laws, including Dodd-Frank.
3. The leakages from 1+2, that left us in the hole to the tune of close to $2 billion, which by 2015 is approaching $3 billion. Yep, that is trillion with a t.
4. What's the equivalent of China's current reserves again? Roughly what Bush wasted $$$ on his misguided wars overseas.
Now let's take a glimpse at what Obama has been able to achieve.
* General Motors and our automobile industry is forging ahead.
* The debt and the federal budget deficits that are falling faster than had been projected.
* Because of the improving domestic economy and winding down the two wars (save for the ISIS issues and Yemen), we can now turn our attention towards helping folks abroad - increasing assistance and funding for energy, infrastructure, agriculture, science, technology, the civil society, health - read up on Obama's GHI - and ebola, governance, women and youth initiatives.
* Negotiating with Iran despite intransigence from the Republicans.
* Signing numerous trade deals with several countries; now turning his belated attention to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Shinzo Abe is in D.C.
Under the circumstances and all things considered, Obama has done well for Africa and the world at large.
This is a laughable extrapolation...there is no doubt that Obama has been one of the greatest american presidents (at least domestically..) but when it come to Africa..he has done nearly zilch.I think he shrunked his global responsibility esp with regard to third world poor countries dying from poverty and diseases.Look at it this way:- without Obama at the helm in January 2009, American history would have been differnt, not just in its details but in its larger outlines. Here's what one should be looking at:
1. What was the state of the US economy in January 2009. Unsolicited answer: in the tank, in the doldrums, hemmoraging like crazy. The national debt skyrocketing, and the deficit in freefall.
2. Two wars that Obama inherited from George W., a man who should have cut our losses early in Afghanistan and never invaded Iraq. Later still, felt the need to begin nation building and the quest to democratise "Eye-raq," couldn't finish his misguided misadventures, thus being the principal causes of point 1 above. Plus the shenanigans in Wall Street through most of the 2000s prior to Obama; enter obama and his enforcement of new and rigorous banking and finance laws, including Dodd-Frank.
3. The leakages from 1+2, that left us in the hole to the tune of close to $2 billion, which by 2015 is approaching $3 billion. Yep, that is trillion with a t.
4. What's the equivalent of China's current reserves again? Roughly what Bush wasted $$$ on his misguided wars overseas.
Now let's take a glimpse at what Obama has been able to achieve.
* General Motors and our automobile industry is forging ahead.
* The debt and the federal budget deficits that are falling faster than had been projected.
* Because of the improving domestic economy and winding down the two wars (save for the ISIS issues and Yemen), we can now turn our attention towards helping folks abroad - increasing assistance and funding for energy, infrastructure, agriculture, science, technology, the civil society, health - read up on Obama's GHI - and ebola, governance, women and youth initiatives.
* Negotiating with Iran despite intransigence from the Republicans.
* Signing numerous trade deals with several countries; now turning his belated attention to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Shinzo Abe is in D.C.
Under the circumstances and all things considered, Obama has done well for Africa and the world at large.
The man cannot even help his real blood family..how do you expect him to show compassion for Africa.While Obama may have Luo DNA, his ties with the Kenyan side of his family are tenuous at best. With a few exceptions, they are perfect strangers. The idea that this guy can be hurt because Obama is not his buddy is ridiculous if you consider that they may not really know each other that much after all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eRKVunuTGDQ#t=444 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eRKVunuTGDQ#t=444)
While Obama may have Luo DNA, his ties with the Kenyan side of his family are tenuous at best. With a few exceptions, they are perfect strangers. The idea that this guy can be hurt because Obama is not his buddy is ridiculous if you consider that they may not really know each other that much after all.
I think he has stronger ties to the Indonesian side of the family. Having spent formative years with his Indonesian adopted father and step sister.
Family is family is family. You do not need to be buddies with family. I'm shocked that you think family loyalty,friendship and love is somehow conditional. Malik might have his own problem..but what about the other family members including clan. Obama carries his father dna and name (if we are not mistaken)..for me..his real family is down there in Kogelo...I could see that perspective in a nuclear family. But if it's relatives he has met maybe one time, I can understand why there are no real ties.
It is expected everywhere in the world that when a family member is as supremely blessed or luckly like Obama has become (don't overrate Obama hardwork or intelligence to get to SH); they should help family members.
Obama went to play golf when his aunt was being buried. An aunt he had gone to visit and live with for some days.
Obama is as evil as Kibaki.While Obama may have Luo DNA, his ties with the Kenyan side of his family are tenuous at best. With a few exceptions, they are perfect strangers. The idea that this guy can be hurt because Obama is not his buddy is ridiculous if you consider that they may not really know each other that much after all.
I think he has stronger ties to the Indonesian side of the family. Having spent formative years with his Indonesian adopted father and step sister.
I could see that perspective in a nuclear family. But if it's relatives he has met maybe one time, I can understand why there are no real ties.
Obama owes that guy nothing. In fact he should be kind enough to show him the middle finger given that he is now looking to make something off of denigrating him
Kibaki's relatives are his immediate ones that he grew up with.
The guy is POTUS whose family should even include the globe. This is not someone struggling. This is the most powerful man on planet earth.He can be able to make a difference in whole of kogelo without even lifting his finger.I could see how he could do something for Kogelo. Though some might disagree with very valid points.
You and me can try the nucler thing..but for Obama nay.
Anything that is in Kogelo was done by I think Saudis...coz the family is islamic. Obama has done nothing except make life hard for those guys by making them target for alshabaab...o K
Kogelo right now would be a completely changed places....all Obama needed was to hire someone he can trust to deal with issues related his family, build a school, hospital, something in honour of his father and his roots.
He has failed. One can only hope his coming to kenya (self invitation) is the start of his redemption.I could see that perspective in a nuclear family. But if it's relatives he has met maybe one time, I can understand why there are no real ties.
Obama owes that guy nothing. In fact he should be kind enough to show him the middle finger given that he is now looking to make something off of denigrating him
Kibaki's relatives are his immediate ones that he grew up with.
Osama is walking a fine line between being POTUS and looking too NegroInteresting. Personally I have never commented on Kibaki and his family until today. That is not to question your observation. People see things.
I find it decidedly funny that the same people who cussed Kifacki for 'neglecting' his family are perfectly at ease with Osama's indifference to his relations. The only difference between Kifacki and Osama's relations is that Osama's are whining about it
There was a news item about Kifacki's sister who is living in abject poverty and the point was she was neglected by her billionaire former president. When it was brought up at .com, I saw negroes viciously attacking Kifacki. As usual, the attacks was largely tribal-political. On Osama, none of them is on Malik's corner.Osama is walking a fine line between being POTUS and looking too NegroInteresting. Personally I have never commented on Kibaki and his family until today. That is not to question your observation. People see things.
I find it decidedly funny that the same people who cussed Kifacki for 'neglecting' his family are perfectly at ease with Osama's indifference to his relations. The only difference between Kifacki and Osama's relations is that Osama's are whining about it
Between Kifucki's and Obama's relations the way I see it. Kifucki's are up close and personal. Even though Obama's ties to the Maliks are very tenuous, it appears this fool has even gotten invites to the White House, courtesy of Obama.
I think you have the roles reversed. The Negro is the only human with no neanderthal gene in his blood. The bazungu, Ndesanjo's now Obamas have neanderthal in them.There was a news item about Kifacki's sister who is living in abject poverty and the point was she was neglected by her billionaire former president. When it was brought up at .com, I saw negroes viciously attacking Kifacki. As usual, the attacks was largely tribal-political. On Osama, none of them is on Malik's corner.Osama is walking a fine line between being POTUS and looking too NegroInteresting. Personally I have never commented on Kibaki and his family until today. That is not to question your observation. People see things.
I find it decidedly funny that the same people who cussed Kifacki for 'neglecting' his family are perfectly at ease with Osama's indifference to his relations. The only difference between Kifacki and Osama's relations is that Osama's are whining about it
Between Kifucki's and Obama's relations the way I see it. Kifucki's are up close and personal. Even though Obama's ties to the Maliks are very tenuous, it appears this fool has even gotten invites to the White House, courtesy of Obama.
I recently watched Osama's step-broda, Desanjo or something on #JKL. He looks much more like him, doing his own stuff in China, I think he is a teacher. He changed his name to Obama after 2008. What surprised me was the fact that the last time he met Osama was in 2008. Osama has kept off just about all of his relations and not just the Kogallo Neanderthals. Desanjo was almost embarrassed of how little contact Osama had maintained with him but he gallantly defended him. So in a way you are right. Had Osama shunned the Neanderthals while embracing the bazungu, Pundit would have a point.
I don't use Neanderthal in an evilutionary sense and you know it.I think you have the roles reversed. The Negro is the only human with no neanderthal gene in his blood. The bazungu, Ndesanjo's now Obamas have neanderthal in them.There was a news item about Kifacki's sister who is living in abject poverty and the point was she was neglected by her billionaire former president. When it was brought up at .com, I saw negroes viciously attacking Kifacki. As usual, the attacks was largely tribal-political. On Osama, none of them is on Malik's corner.Osama is walking a fine line between being POTUS and looking too NegroInteresting. Personally I have never commented on Kibaki and his family until today. That is not to question your observation. People see things.
I find it decidedly funny that the same people who cussed Kifacki for 'neglecting' his family are perfectly at ease with Osama's indifference to his relations. The only difference between Kifacki and Osama's relations is that Osama's are whining about it
Between Kifucki's and Obama's relations the way I see it. Kifucki's are up close and personal. Even though Obama's ties to the Maliks are very tenuous, it appears this fool has even gotten invites to the White House, courtesy of Obama.
I recently watched Osama's step-broda, Desanjo or something on #JKL. He looks much more like him, doing his own stuff in China, I think he is a teacher. He changed his name to Obama after 2008. What surprised me was the fact that the last time he met Osama was in 2008. Osama has kept off just about all of his relations and not just the Kogallo Neanderthals. Desanjo was almost embarrassed of how little contact Osama had maintained with him but he gallantly defended him. So in a way you are right. Had Osama shunned the Neanderthals while embracing the bazungu, Pundit would have a point.
When you mention Ndesanjo, it's even funnier. He is the guy who had no time for Obama and his Negro relatives right across town, if you have read that Dreams book.
The difference I see between Obama and Kibaki is that Obama is a bazungu kid with African DNA. He has never been African by any stretch of the imagination. His appreciation of "family" may therefore be closer to bazungu individualism (which to us is uchoyo) than baafrika "communism". What is Kibaki's excuse? His father apparently died alone in a mud-hut with a hole large enough for a snake to crawl through and zero bucks while Kibaki served Moi as vice-president. His own DAD. Then there's the awful way he denied his family on television to please Lucy while president, and the awful way he treated his second wife publicly in the run-up to the 2013 elections. Or Uhuru's (excuse) for that matter? Didn't see the news item myself but heard that juzi it was on the news that the late Kenyatta's blood brother (Uhuru's paternal uncle) is himself in abject poverty despite the ridiculous levels of Kenyatta wealth, and that besides that, Mama Ngina has taken from him a measly 3.5 acres of land (for which reason he's in court and the story on the news), all the gazillions of acres the family owns notwithstanding. I don't know what kinds of Africans these are, personally. Simply strange. I'm middle of the road with Obama. I think he's a coward and elitist, doesn't want to be accused of "tribalism" either regarding Africa or African Americans. Which is a shame.There was a news item about Kifacki's sister who is living in abject poverty and the point was she was neglected by her billionaire former president. When it was brought up at .com, I saw negroes viciously attacking Kifacki. As usual, the attacks was largely tribal-political. On Osama, none of them is on Malik's corner.Osama is walking a fine line between being POTUS and looking too NegroInteresting. Personally I have never commented on Kibaki and his family until today. That is not to question your observation. People see things.
I find it decidedly funny that the same people who cussed Kifacki for 'neglecting' his family are perfectly at ease with Osama's indifference to his relations. The only difference between Kifacki and Osama's relations is that Osama's are whining about it
Between Kifucki's and Obama's relations the way I see it. Kifucki's are up close and personal. Even though Obama's ties to the Maliks are very tenuous, it appears this fool has even gotten invites to the White House, courtesy of Obama.
I recently watched Osama's step-broda, Desanjo or something on #JKL. He looks much more like him, doing his own stuff in China, I think he is a teacher. He changed his name to Obama after 2008. What surprised me was the fact that the last time he met Osama was in 2008. Osama has kept off just about all of his relations and not just the Kogallo Neanderthals. Desanjo was almost embarrassed of how little contact Osama had maintained with him but he gallantly defended him. So in a way you are right. Had Osama shunned the Neanderthals while embracing the bazungu, Pundit would have a point.
The difference I see between Obama and Kibaki is that Obama is a bazungu kid with African DNA. He has never been African by any stretch of the imagination. His appreciation of "family" may therefore be closer to bazungu individualism (which to us is uchoyo) than baafrika "communism". What is Kibaki's excuse? His father apparently died alone in a mud-hut with a hole large enough for a snake to crawl through and zero bucks while Kibaki served Moi as vice-president. His own DAD. Then there's the awful way he denied his family on television to please Lucy while president, and the awful way he treated his second wife publicly in the run-up to the 2013 elections. Or Uhuru's (excuse) for that matter? Didn't see the news item myself but heard that juzi it was on the news that the late Kenyatta's blood brother (Uhuru's paternal uncle) is himself in abject poverty despite the ridiculous levels of Kenyatta wealth, and that besides that, Mama Ngina has taken from him a measly 3.5 acres of land (for which reason he's in court and the story on the news), all the gazillions of acres the family owns notwithstanding. I don't know what kinds of Africans these are, personally. Simply strange. I'm middle of the road with Obama. I think he's a coward and elitist, doesn't want to be accused of "tribalism" either regarding Africa or African Americans. Which is a shame.
I saw the story and my respect for Mama Ngina and his son dramatically reduced to near zero. They own the world. Give that man some 20 acres of land. Whatever he did.Look at Moi...despite being evil and all that...he clearly is a good man...he had countless adopted sons and daughters..is generous to a hilt..and even when he divorced with the wife..he made sure she was well kept..the man helped lift his village, const and people out of poverty. Even the guys who worked under moi as cooks or driver or security guards...all got the piece of action..coz moi cared about them..as human.
There lived a great human being..MOI...no wonder since 1950s he stood unopposed as Baringo Central Mp.
It is for the same reason I think Sonko will eat Kidero alive.
I think the values of charity or "communism" are as important as handwork or whatever Obama standard for. We ought to condemn selfishness.
Look at Bill Gates..the many is so wealthy but he realize his wealthy will mean nothing when he dies.
Of what use is all those billions in the bank....if you cannot help change the lives of the people most close to you?
I haven't made millions yet but I wonder what's the value of wealth if not the enjoy it or watch somebody else enjoy your sweat? That joy in seeing a hopeless kid go to Uni or a national school because you have some spare coins.
The ONLY reason I can think of Mama Ngina being extremely mean on that relation is if there was some serious bad blood between him and Jomo and he probably made them swear to never help him. Otherwise Mama Ngina looks like Evil Incarnate
Indeed, gentlemen. Some levels of meanness just don't make sense. I totally expect that Kidero cannot stand up to Sonko no matter what Nairobi "classy" folk think of him. I have heard literally HUNDREDS of stories about how Sonko helped this or that person, mama mbogas, youth trying to get through school. He is an idiot in public but the bottom line is that for most ordinary folk, once they hear about his generosity to the "lower-levels" of Nairobi, their hearts simply melt. There's something about a generous soul, it says to people "I am a good-hearted person" no matter what else I do that's silly. I heard while Sonko still lived in Buru, he once found tens of kids heading home mchana, asked what was up, was told they had been sent home for fees. He returned them all back to the school and paid the money. He opened so many vibandas for women, sent like a thousand kids to IT school and like 60 to aviation. Kideros is just known for collapsing Mumias and making sugar expensive. Hana bahati. The man is finished. As for Obama, speaking like a mkenya, ana maringo za peni nane. Vanity.
Look at it this way:- without Obama at the helm in January 2009, American history would have been different, not just in its details but in its larger outlines. Here's what one should be looking at:Thank you RT, its easy for one to dismiss these very important achievements achieved by the first black president in the US history under very delicate circumstances. And another thing, Africans should start addressing their own problems before they start looking and pointing fingers at others for help. Obama's first priority is America, and there isn't much anyone can do about that.
1. What was the state of the US economy in January 2009. Unsolicited answer: in the tank, in the doldrums, hemmoraging like crazy. The national debt skyrocketing, and the deficit in freefall.
2. Two wars that Obama inherited from George W., a man who should have cut our losses early in Afghanistan and never invaded Iraq. Later still, felt the need to begin nation building and the quest to democratise "Eye-raq," couldn't finish his misguided misadventures, thus being the principal causes of point 1 above. Plus the shenanigans in Wall Street through most of the 2000s prior to Obama; enter obama and his enforcement of new and rigorous banking and finance laws, including Dodd-Frank.
3. The leakages from 1+2, that left us in the hole to the tune of close to $2 billion, which by 2015 is approaching $3 billion. Yep, that is trillion with a t.
4. What's the equivalent of China's current reserves again? Roughly what Bush wasted $$$ on his misguided wars overseas.
Now let's take a glimpse at what Obama has been able to achieve.
* General Motors and our automobile industry is forging ahead.
* The debt and the federal budget deficits that are falling faster than had been projected.
* Because of the improving domestic economy and winding down the two wars (save for the ISIS issues and Yemen), we can now turn our attention towards helping folks abroad - increasing assistance and funding for energy, infrastructure, agriculture, science, technology, the civil society, health - read up on Obama's GHI - and ebola, governance, women and youth initiatives.
* Negotiating with Iran despite intransigence from the Republicans.
* Signing numerous trade deals with several countries; now turning his belated attention to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Shinzo Abe is in D.C.
Under the circumstances and all things considered, Obama has done well for Africa and the world at large.
@ BellaMe I think that on his lame duck leg, Obama should not control how black he appears when addressing injustices. Those who won't understand were never wired to understand either way.
When it comes to Obama...its simplistic to call his predicament maringo. I don't see what maringo has to do with anything when its comes to governing a country so complex and entrenched in racism as America. I think Obama is trying a delicate balance between appeasing the majority while still addressing the racial injustices that plague America without appearing too 'black.' You can hate him for that, but that is the reason he won the election twice in a country that has 13% of black population. Time and time again, he has addressed the racism issue, and each time, everyone has had an opinion on what he should have or not have said....... I am not sure one man can do all that. There are leaders all over the country that can continue to champion what plagues the black community and assist him, while he is figuring how to prevent ways btw Iran and Israel, or ISIS or Boko haram etc. When it comes to that communism you talk about, Obama's upbringing is as American as the next white person who simply thinks of his own family so there is nothing much there to be expected.
Really?
This Malik fella is quite a tool. It turns out he has been to the White House a couple of times. He was complaining that they let him in through the back door. Was he expecting to be received as a head of state?
I think he is also foolish to burn bridges with Obama. Because money-making opportunities abound for former US Presidents; a time when Obama could have time on his hands for this type.
Check out that video that pundit posted earlier. It's in there somewhere. I think he believes Obama can just do stuff for him as if he is the President of Equatorial Guinea. He sees Obama in that light. An African big man.Really?
This Malik fella is quite a tool. It turns out he has been to the White House a couple of times. He was complaining that they let him in through the back door. Was he expecting to be received as a head of state?
I think he is also foolish to burn bridges with Obama. Because money-making opportunities abound for former US Presidents; a time when Obama could have time on his hands for this type.
Somebody said he had squandered some foundation mullah. Did I tell you that Desanjo has met Osama like once since 2008? And the guy was not whining.
Anyway, Osama looks determined to maintain an unhealthy distance between him and his Negro relations
This Malik fella is quite a tool.
Thank you RT, its easy for one to dismiss these very important achievements achieved by the first black president in the US history under very delicate circumstances. And another thing, Africans should start addressing their own problems before they start looking and pointing fingers at others for help. Obama's first priority is America, and there isn't much anyone can do about that.
I think he expected Obama to pull strings for him. Like Khulubuse Zuma for example. He cannot believe that Obama expects him to still earn his upkeep.This Malik fella is quite a tool.
He, he, he ... what a guy. I watched a bit of that video. It seems full of amusing ironies.
One is where he goes on and on about what if their father was a live, his father's approach to "family", blah blah blah. Of all the good things that can be said of Obama Snr., I doubt that "model father & family man" would be one.
Another is that while he is seemingly concerned with people "helping" others solely on the basis of "blood" and "family", there he is, working with his brother's enemies to portray him in bad light. And it's not as if Barrack Obama has done him any harm.
A third is that it was Barrack Obama who, starting from around his time at Columbia, made an effort---a successful one--to track down his siblings and other relatives (including Malik). There is little to suggest that any of them ever went looking for him after the father did a runner.
Ultimately, it is just sad to see a human being engage in such unnecessary and self-destructive bitterness.
@ BellaHey, Mya,
When it comes to Obama...its simplistic to call his predicament maringo. I don't see what maringo has to do with anything when its comes to governing a country so complex and entrenched in racism as America. I think Obama is trying a delicate balance between appeasing the majority while still addressing the racial injustices that plague America without appearing too 'black.' You can hate him for that, but that is the reason he won the election twice in a country that has 13% of black population. Time and time again, he has addressed the racism issue, and each time, everyone has had an opinion on what he should have or not have said....... I am not sure one man can do all that. There are leaders all over the country that can continue to champion what plagues the black community and assist him, while he is figuring how to prevent ways btw Iran and Israel, or ISIS or Boko haram etc. When it comes to that communism you talk about, Obama's upbringing is as American as the next white person who simply thinks of his own family so there is nothing much there to be expected.
I think he expected Obama to pull strings for him. Like Khulubuse Zuma for example. He cannot believe that Obama expects him to still earn his upkeep.
@ Bella
When it comes to Obama...its simplistic to call his predicament maringo. I don't see what maringo has to do with anything when its comes to governing a country so complex and entrenched in racism as America. I think Obama is trying a delicate balance between appeasing the majority while still addressing the racial injustices that plague America without appearing too 'black.' You can hate him for that, but that is the reason he won the election twice in a country that has 13% of black population. Time and time again, he has addressed the racism issue, and each time, everyone has had an opinion on what he should have or not have said....... I am not sure one man can do all that. There are leaders all over the country that can continue to champion what plagues the black community and assist him, while he is figuring how to prevent ways btw Iran and Israel, or ISIS or Boko haram etc. When it comes to that communism you talk about, Obama's upbringing is as American as the next white person who simply thinks of his own family so there is nothing much there to be expected.
That's a good summary of what I think he feels he has to do. But I think he is a step behind people(including whites I would have put right of center a few years ago) on the street.@ Bella
When it comes to Obama...its simplistic to call his predicament maringo. I don't see what maringo has to do with anything when its comes to governing a country so complex and entrenched in racism as America. I think Obama is trying a delicate balance between appeasing the majority while still addressing the racial injustices that plague America without appearing too 'black.' You can hate him for that, but that is the reason he won the election twice in a country that has 13% of black population. Time and time again, he has addressed the racism issue, and each time, everyone has had an opinion on what he should have or not have said....... I am not sure one man can do all that. There are leaders all over the country that can continue to champion what plagues the black community and assist him, while he is figuring how to prevent ways btw Iran and Israel, or ISIS or Boko haram etc. When it comes to that communism you talk about, Obama's upbringing is as American as the next white person who simply thinks of his own family so there is nothing much there to be expected.
I think it is more than that. Consider the entire history of blacks in America and the circumstances even today. And let us imagine that Obama went all out, railing against racism and saying all the "Black-Power" stuff that one can imagine. What difference would that actually make? Lasting changes for blacks in America cannot be made without being mindful of the white power-structure. Even the success of the civil-rights movement owes quite a bit to the fact that at some point a sufficient number of whites saw the light. To my mind, Martin Luther King achieved far more than the Black Panthers (and the like); and there's a good reason for that.
I have listened to Obama speak many times on racism, and I think he is keenly aware of the issues. But, as I see it, he is also aware of certain practicalities. Short of a violent revolution, which is probably impossible, the "black problem" in the USA has to be dealt with in the context realities. Those realities should also include, however painful at the moment, the need to remind people of responsibilities to self: sure you are angry, but why destroy where you live? I would consider that Obama had failed in his duties if he did not point out the two sides of the coin.
The only way to only way to counter Malik is to show what Obama has done to his grand mother, to rest of his immediate family and Kogelo.
Without that, I'm going to join Malik (who has had the opportunity to see Obama for what he is) and dismiss the selfish elitist Obama.
Obama is a selfish coward.
The only way to only way to counter Malik is to show what Obu
I don't think it is necessary to really "counter" him; even his Republican "friends" will soon forget him.QuoteWithout that, I'm going to join Malik (who has had the opportunity to see Obama for what he is) and dismiss the selfish elitist Obama.
You may certainly go ahead and do that. But we need not exchange too many "postings" on the impact of your "joining" Malik.
And coming from someone like Malik, I can understand his bitterness.
Most people, that I know, now understand the issue as separate from conditions in the black ghetto. Obama comes across as stiff. I don't know whether it's his personality or an attempti to distance himself from the angry black man appearance. He has never shown anger in 8 years in power.
Sometimes, I feel like the ghost of Jeremiah Wright still haunts him. Most people who voted for him, knew he is black with all the baggage that brings. To me that is a constituency that does not need much convincing that cops need to stop enjoying impunity whenever they kill blacks.
Sure he can acknowlegde other issues. But it would not hurt any cause to separate them from the sanctity of life. The man needs to say black lives unconditionally matter.
I'm sure will find that---your understanding---helpful. That's what's important. :D
Malik has gone public...looking for validation..and I'm here telling him he did the right thing.
Kenyans on that day should not waste their time on Obama.
I have no doubt that he's very grateful for that. :D
I'm more grateful for his courage to come out and expose the fraud to the world.
And I'm sure Obama's Whitehouse is on standstill as they read your comments.Good come back. :) Moon Ki thinks matharau and condenscension is some kind of cool debate tactic. Instead of just sticking to disprooving you on Obama or otherwise dismissing your points by other arguments, he decides that mocking you for having views he disagrees with is the best response.I'm sure will find that---your understanding---helpful. That's what's important. :D
Good come back. :) Moon Ki thinks matharau and condenscension is some kind of debate tactic. Instead of just sticking to disprooving you on Obama or otherwise dismissing your points by other arguments, he decides that mocking you for having views he disagrees with is the best response.
Still, I have this feeling that they will "waste" a lot of time and money on it. Some of it your tax-money. :D
Life's a biatch, I suppose.
The best way to welcome Obama for me is to have William Ruto welcome him at Airport and take him around...
...with Uhuru really feeling sweet and allowing only 5 mins of his busy schedule to see POTUS.
I wish Mutua was around to dismiss him as junior senator.
Blacks like Malik have realize the facade for what it is and taken the matters on their hand. The man will never advance black causes. You'll have to wait for another Bill Clinton or well JFK.You know that's cheating. Malik is not slandering Obama on behalf of anyone but his lazy ass. Malik wants to marry a second, third..umpteenth wife while crossing paths with kina kamwana and buddies. And he wants Barack to make that happen. That is not the same thing as worrying that your son's life could be taken away on the whim of a racist cop.
Most people, that I know, now understand the issue as separate from conditions in the black ghetto. Obama comes across as stiff. I don't know whether it's his personality or an attempti to distance himself from the angry black man appearance. He has never shown anger in 8 years in power.
Sometimes, I feel like the ghost of Jeremiah Wright still haunts him. Most people who voted for him, knew he is black with all the baggage that brings. To me that is a constituency that does not need much convincing that cops need to stop enjoying impunity whenever they kill blacks.
Sure he can acknowlegde other issues. But it would not hurt any cause to separate them from the sanctity of life. The man needs to say black lives unconditionally matter.
The best way to welcome Obama for me is to have William Ruto welcome him at Airport and take him around...
I wish Mutua was around to dismiss him as junior senator.
...with Uhuru really feeling sweet and allowing only 5 mins of his busy schedule to see POTUS.
He has never shown anger in 8 years in power.
I have no doubt he feels it. Given that he worked as a community organizer on the south side. While anger is not always a good thing, I feel like Obama is suppressing it even when he should show it. Any constituency that he loses on that basis, was never part of his to begin with.He has never shown anger in 8 years in power.
I don't know what you mean by "anger"; but interpreting it in the obvious sense, is that necessarily a bad thing?
When I think of a man like MLK, "anger" is not what comes to mind; but resoluteness, compassion, etc. do. On the other hand, on any given day you could probably have lit a cigarette by using it to touch, say, Stokely Carmichael. But, overall, which of the two can we say achieved more?
I listened to Obama speak on the Trayvon-Martin case, and I was struck by how personal he made it and the depth of emotion that was in his words. So I hope that a lack of "anger" does not imply that he doesn't "feel it".
I think it comes back to Jeremiah Wright connection. I feel he has never fully emerged from publicly dismissing an associate of many years.
I don't feel like MLK is any more responsible for the civil rights achievements than the more radical blacks. Was the establishment more comfortable with him? Absolutely.
Would they have budged if the black population consisted entirely of MLK types I doubt it. MLK was seen as desirable only against the backdrop of radical alternatives.
Jeremiah Wright was his pastor for 20 years. Wright had some pretty unsavory things to say about white America. Obama condemned him, during his campaign, and said he had never heard of them. An obvious, if understandable, lie. But I believe it not only soured a relationship that Obama valued, but he still feels like he has to create some daylight between him and anything remotely approaching what Jeremiah Wright might approveI think it comes back to Jeremiah Wright connection. I feel he has never fully emerged from publicly dismissing an associate of many years.
This is one I haven't given much thought. I will return to it when I have ...QuoteI don't feel like MLK is any more responsible for the civil rights achievements than the more radical blacks. Was the establishment more comfortable with him? Absolutely.
Would they have budged if the black population consisted entirely of MLK types I doubt it. MLK was seen as desirable only against the backdrop of radical alternatives.
These are debatable points, but probably not on this thread. But one wonders: what were the "radical alternatives"? One has to keep in mind that at a certain point, Edgar Hoover and his boys had thoroughly infiltrated and gone some way in compromising these "radical alternatives". What's more, the "radical alternatives" were in self-destruction mode: Keep in mind that Stokely Carmichael's break with the Black Panthers started when none other than Huey Newton suggested that he was an FBI/CIA stooge. For his part, Carmichael thought the Black Panthers were not "angry" enough, in that they wished to welcome white activists who supported the black cause. So what is the "backdrop of radical alternatives"? The "radicals" were busy finishing themselves!
In general, I have my doubts about "radical black alternatives". Are blacks in America in a position to bring the country (or at least serious chunks of it) to a grinding and miserable halt. Absolutely. Should Americans in general be concerned about that? I don't see why. Historically, and Baltimore now is no different, such riots have a worse effect on where blacks live and work than where "The Man" really is. So why should "The Man" be concerned. That too is, as I see it, part of Obama's message.
In 2 or 3 weeks, Baltimore will be calm; but there will be no large infusion of money or "let's really change Baltimore". There will be some talk of police reform. The Department of Justice will get involved, if the locals do nothing about the copper. And then it will mostly be forgotten. Except by those who will find that where they initially had little, they now have even less. Because they destroyed a nice chunk of it.That's probably true. It is also true that those guys have very little to lose. When you are losing limbs and spine, it seems like that is a small price to pay to get your message across.
Jeremiah Wright was his pastor for 20 years. Wright had some pretty unsavory things to say about white America.
It is also true that those guys have very little to lose. When you are losing limbs and spine, it seems like that is a small price to pay to get your message across.
When you consider his ties with Wright. Then activism on the south side. One would have to be nuts to believe Obama did not share views like that, let alone never having heard of them. That's why I believe he suppresses a major part of himself. Unnecessary in 2015.Jeremiah Wright was his pastor for 20 years. Wright had some pretty unsavory things to say about white America.
I know of that story. I meant I have not really thought of Obama's actions with that as the background. Which I should.QuoteIt is also true that those guys have very little to lose. When you are losing limbs and spine, it seems like that is a small price to pay to get your message across.
So they come back in prosthetics, to clean up the mess they just made. I'm not sure that they are much better off.
I do agree that violence can play an important role in making all sorts of changes, but I think it depends on what type, as well as the "cost:performance ratio". We'll have to save that for another thread.
In your opinion, what more do you think Obama should do or have done differently in all these instances that involve young black males. He has talked about it since his election in 2008 when Jeremiah White debacle threatened to derail his presidency. He did it in a way that was easier for all to understand. Up until then the Rev Al Sharp ton et al who had taken the more radical approach hadn't made much leeway into American mainstream. He sent the Attorney general in Ferguson for even more support. He talked about Travon Martin and made a personal comparison. Ultimately the judicial system had to take its course. Obama;s personality is more of a smooth level headed guy and he is unlikely to show strong emotions even when I am upset. I am just not sure what more he should be doing at this point. He was on TV condemning the looting while at the same time reminding America that this problem isn't now and that they shouldn't be acting surprised. He again called in the Feds to look into these police misconduct instances.That's a good summary of what I think he feels he has to do. But I think he is a step behind people(including whites I would have put right of center a few years ago) on the street.@ Bella
When it comes to Obama...its simplistic to call his predicament maringo. I don't see what maringo has to do with anything when its comes to governing a country so complex and entrenched in racism as America. I think Obama is trying a delicate balance between appeasing the majority while still addressing the racial injustices that plague America without appearing too 'black.' You can hate him for that, but that is the reason he won the election twice in a country that has 13% of black population. Time and time again, he has addressed the racism issue, and each time, everyone has had an opinion on what he should have or not have said....... I am not sure one man can do all that. There are leaders all over the country that can continue to champion what plagues the black community and assist him, while he is figuring how to prevent ways btw Iran and Israel, or ISIS or Boko haram etc. When it comes to that communism you talk about, Obama's upbringing is as American as the next white person who simply thinks of his own family so there is nothing much there to be expected.
I think it is more than that. Consider the entire history of blacks in America and the circumstances even today. And let us imagine that Obama went all out, railing against racism and saying all the "Black-Power" stuff that one can imagine. What difference would that actually make? Lasting changes for blacks in America cannot be made without being mindful of the white power-structure. Even the success of the civil-rights movement owes quite a bit to the fact that at some point a sufficient number of whites saw the light. To my mind, Martin Luther King achieved far more than the Black Panthers (and the like); and there's a good reason for that.
I have listened to Obama speak many times on racism, and I think he is keenly aware of the issues. But, as I see it, he is also aware of certain practicalities. Short of a violent revolution, which is probably impossible, the "black problem" in the USA has to be dealt with in the context realities. Those realities should also include, however painful at the moment, the need to remind people of responsibilities to self: sure you are angry, but why destroy where you live? I would consider that Obama had failed in his duties if he did not point out the two sides of the coin.
Most people, that I know, now understand the issue as separate from conditions in the black ghetto. Obama comes across as stiff. I don't know whether it's his personality or an attempt to distance himself from the angry black man appearance. He has never shown anger in 8 years in power.
Sometimes, I feel like the ghost of Jeremiah Wright still haunts him. Most people who voted for him, knew he is black with all the baggage that brings. To me that is a constituency that does not need much convincing that cops need to stop enjoying impunity whenever they kill blacks.
Sure he can acknowlegde other issues. But it would not hurt any cause to separate them from the sanctity of life. The man needs to say black lives unconditionally matter.
@ BellaHey, Mya,
When it comes to Obama...its simplistic to call his predicament maringo. I don't see what maringo has to do with anything when its comes to governing a country so complex and entrenched in racism as America. I think Obama is trying a delicate balance between appeasing the majority while still addressing the racial injustices that plague America without appearing too 'black.' You can hate him for that, but that is the reason he won the election twice in a country that has 13% of black population. Time and time again, he has addressed the racism issue, and each time, everyone has had an opinion on what he should have or not have said....... I am not sure one man can do all that. There are leaders all over the country that can continue to champion what plagues the black community and assist him, while he is figuring how to prevent ways btw Iran and Israel, or ISIS or Boko haram etc. When it comes to that communism you talk about, Obama's upbringing is as American as the next white person who simply thinks of his own family so there is nothing much there to be expected.
I totally understood Obama's need to appear "neutral" before both elections. I just don't understand the reason for it now, especially when it comes to blacks in the USA. Maringo za peni nane is just my Nairobi way of calling him elitist. He used to be accused of that before but I thought it was Republican political "weaponry", but to me it seems very true after 2012, when he is terrified of being associated with his black DNA too much even though there're no more real political risks involved. At that point, he should highlight the fact that he is black and the most powerful/influential black at that, therefore has every reason to be concerned about such issues, not try to minimize the black association more. Blacks are marginalized, poor, struggling, why should it be strange if the first black president gives priority to their issues? If blacks were swimming in prosperity, it would make sense to fear looking like you are helping "your own". Even if there were no political risks left, there would be an integrity issue if blacks did not really have big problems. But what integrity issue is there with taking up the black issues in the circumstances? His shyness is not explainable just by the political risks at this point.
In your opinion, what more do you think Obama should do or have done differently in all these instances that involve young black males. He has talked about it since his election in 2008 when Jeremiah White debacle threatened to derail his presidency. He did it in a way that was easier for all to understand. Up until then the Rev Al Sharp ton et al who had taken the more radical approach hadn't made much leeway into American mainstream. He sent the Attorney general in Ferguson for even more support. He talked about Travon Martin and made a personal comparison. Ultimately the judicial system had to take its course. Obama;s personality is more of a smooth level headed guy and he is unlikely to show strong emotions even when I am upset. I am just not sure what more he should be doing at this point. He was on TV condemning the looting while at the same time reminding America that this problem isn't now and that they shouldn't be acting surprised. He again called in the Feds to look into these police misconduct instances.There is a group that will not understand no matter what. In the process of trying to make this shrinking group happy, he is clouding the issue.
So WSR Is Still considered an ICC Inductee and MUST stay away from Obama entourage? :D
Word in the high streets of power is that Deputy President William is now blaming powerful statehouse operatives for blocking his alleged scheduled visit to DRC Congo. :lol: :lol:
The deputy President knew very well that as a war crimes indictee he was NOT to be allowed anywhere close to Obama’s top diplomat US Secretary of State John Kerry.
The DP had arranged a whirlwind tour of DR Congo and Congo Brazzaville to avoid the embarrassment but it is said that Statehouse failed to approve his trip. Instead they lied to him that he will join Uhuru at statehouse for talks with John Kerry.
It is now obvious that because of the little matter at the International Criminal Court (ICC) deputy president William Ruto was not allowed to come near US secretary of state John Kerry- to say the least this was a big embarrasssment.
Kerry met Odinga, Kalonzo, Wetangula and even activist Boniface Mwangi but was on strict orders not meet or even come close to William Ruto. Humiliated and feeling betrayed, a die hard DP supporter has floated ideas on best possible destinations for DP to visit (technically hide) while Obama will be in town come July;
(https://www.kenya-today.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/125.jpg)
Here are some of the options Ruto should consider:
1. Kismayo and Mogadishu in Somali; here the DP has a perfect excuse of visiting our men and women in uniform.
2. Go hide in DRC Congo, he can join his agemate president Kabila of DR Congo. The DP loves farming, there is plenty of land in Congo to see.
3. Go for his PhD fellowship in China; the DP who is doing his second year of PhD studies at Nairobi University- focusing in insects found in swamp areas can take a break and visit any of the swamps in China. Chinese people will be happy to have him.
4. Lead a humanitarian aid in Nepal; the Asian country was hit by earthquake, the DP can lead members of his church to offer support to Nepal people
5. Go to Nigeria for an evangelical mission; the DP is a known evangelist, he can ask his old close friend and sister in Christ songstress Emmy Kosgei for an invitation to minister in the church of our ”in-law”
6. Fake illness to get admitted at Nairobi hospital or at a hospital in India
The USA Embassy (by extension state department) that is charge of Kerry itinerary is said to have made it clear that Ruto will NOT be allowed to shake hands with Kerry.
Last week Ruto was at the airport welcoming former US president Bill Clinton.
President Clinton was in the country to oversee his charity activities under the flagship of the Clinton Global initiative- he was here as a private citizen not representing the USA government and that is why it was easy for Ruto to get access.
Ruto is now said to be shopping for an invitation to a foreign land, with most ambassadors coming from Uhuru’s inner circles it is getting difficult for Ruto to get a quick fix.
Aden Duale is rumoured to have proposed to DP to visit Kismayu and Mogadishu in Somali to pay a surprise visit to KDF and African Union force bases.
HERE is how one pundit captured it all: :)
Huyo jamaa should borrow some tricks from his erstwhile friend Raila Odinga. This is the time to go out on some trip outside the country.
He can come back after that Yankee has left. When the other bigger Yankee comes to visit in July, huyo Jamaa can go out on another visit outside the country. That will stop all those speculations or even the prospect of being held incommunicado in Karen. Those Yankees are capable of anything. If you doubt that, wait until you see those mean looking marines standing atop Harambee House while holding dogs by the leashes. Or better still ask Prof. Ongeri. By the way, why are they called ‘marines’?
Deputy President William Ruto has been linked to a controversial Sh28 billion deal to put up a new referral hospital in Eldoret, with a Nairobi businessman claiming that there is a plot to fleece taxpayers of Sh11 billion in the deal.http://standardmedia.co.ke/article/2000161461/whistleblower-links-ruto-to-sh28b-hospital-scam (http://standardmedia.co.ke/article/2000161461/whistleblower-links-ruto-to-sh28b-hospital-scam)
The businessman, Herbert Ojwang', appeared before the National Assembly Public Investments Committee (PIC) and requested the committee chaired by Eldas MP Adan Keynan to investigate the matter, which he termed as a scandal to mint money for an individual.
Ojwang' claimed he was the brains behind the idea of upgrading the current Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital (MRTH) in Eldoret, a plan he said was later taken away from him under the instructions of the deputy president and transformed into a scandal.
The whistleblower, who tabled to the committee an audio recording and pictures he took with the DP, where he was allegedly coerced to pull out of the deal, said the original design and cost for the modernisation of the hospital was Sh17 billion.
He said the budget has since risen to Sh28 billion since it was taken away from him.
so in my view the need to keep the perception that Chinese are here to exploit us wheas USA are here to help is what is making Obama take that risk explained in the article starting this thread. this brings to mind the very 1st USA ambassador to Kenya after we attained the flag and national anthem independence. he was expelled by old Jomo but he left a gem 'The Blacks and the Reds' which is still unavailable in our bookshops but a worthy read 50 years later.
“And so my advice to African leaders is to make sure that if, in fact, China is putting in roads and bridges, number one, that they’re hiring African workers; number two, that the roads don’t just lead from the mine to the port to Shanghai, but that there’s an ability for the African governments to shape how this infrastructure is going to benefit them in the long term”
Commentary from our "sister"/"brother" website:
http://jukwaa.proboards.com/thread/9341/kenya-dumb-idea-president?page=1&scrollTo=133149Quoteso in my view the need to keep the perception that Chinese are here to exploit us wheas USA are here to help is what is making Obama take that risk explained in the article starting this thread. this brings to mind the very 1st USA ambassador to Kenya after we attained the flag and national anthem independence. he was expelled by old Jomo but he left a gem 'The Blacks and the Reds' which is still unavailable in our bookshops but a worthy read 50 years later.
This is the sort of mindset that got Africa f**ked during the Cold War: while the major protagonists were just playing games, Africa took it upon itself to fight a Hot War on their behalf. And the results are still evident today.
How did that happen? African "leaders" thought they were being clever in playing "East vs. West". And some today still think so. And the manamba have also bought into this idea that everything the West (especially the USA) does in Africa is a reaction to the East (now the Chinese). I think not; perhaps it has not happened in Africa, but elsewhere lessons have been learned since the Cold War. In particular, the USA does not see it as an over-riding concern that it should go all-out stymie Chinese actions in Africa. Had it been otherwise, we would have seen more US "action" in Africa. The current US approach is best captured in the views of Brzezinski, and he is a guy that even Obama listens to quite carefully. That view is that the USA has no really vital interests in Africa---if you disagree, then list them for discussion---and to the extent that the USA should be concerned with the Chinese foray in Africa, it should be on how best to share Africa and whatever it has. He is also of the view that African leaders are incapable of charting their own path and so are easily "bendable". I doubt that Obama is that cynical, but I see no evidence that his government has been particularly concerned with China in Africa, in the sense that they felt something there needed a "hard counter". (By evidence, I mean more than words.)
This is what seems to have caused the current excitement:Quote“And so my advice to African leaders is to make sure that if, in fact, China is putting in roads and bridges, number one, that they’re hiring African workers; number two, that the roads don’t just lead from the mine to the port to Shanghai, but that there’s an ability for the African governments to shape how this infrastructure is going to benefit them in the long term”
That seems perfectly sensible advice, and it is astonishing that it is even necessary. What the "the West is just jealous" brigade seems to have missed is the need to reflect on that rather obvious advice. There seems to be no end to "the West is saying or doing this and that because China is doing this and that". But what is really required is not Cold-War type of soft-headed claims; the better response would an objective consideration of whether Africa is really gaining from this new love affair with Kung Fu. A concrete argument to that end would be far better than quoting, out of context, some guy who dies ages ago.
Ah, yes; Obama's visit to Kenya:
* First, given the historical significance of Obama's becoming the US president and his connections to Kenya, it was "inevitable" that a visit to Kenya should happen at some point. It did not happen earlier for a fairly obvious reason---and even now whether or not he will meet with a certain assistant leader is still in doubt.
* Second, Obama has been acting: shortly after he became the US president, Kenya shot into the Top-10 of US aid recipients. (Some other countries saw their lot cut.) A quick look at where that money is going will show that none of it is intended to "counter the Chinese".
And the little matter of Kenya being "vital" to US interests in the region. That's Cold-War stuff that got many suckered into the idea that Kenya is vital because it is "an island in an ocean of chaos" or whatever. Today that little con is being applied in the context of terrorism, but look along that coast and consider who's really vital in that dubious "war"---hint, hint: Djibouti.
Quite a few years ago, I had the opportunity (in Georgetown) to hear Brzezinski talk, or perform, depending on one's viewpoint. He barely acknowledged Africa during the 90 or so minutes, so at "question-time" I brought it up---by specifically pointing out that Kenya was an "important ally" of the USA. I can no longer remember his exact answer, but it was something along the lines of (a) why exactly did I think Kenya was an "important ally" and (b) what exactly did Kenya have that the USA wanted or needed and couldn't get elsewhere. (Perhaps you have some answers?) Rather unhelpfully, he also pointed out that we live in a capitalist world, and in said world the USA works very hard to construct mutually favourable trade agreements with important allies. (How many of those are in Africa.)
So: what exactly does the USA have to worry bout Kung Fu's being in Kenya? The destruction of our wildlife?
In conclusion, RE Kenya:
(1) There will be no great bag of goodies from Obama's visit. Anyone who follows the trend of US Congressional budget stuff knows that most of the money---which would come through USAID---has probably already been settled on. (If you can't find your local diplomat, he or she is probably in Washington D.C. for the annual begging season.)
(2) The USA is not competing with China in Kenya: US funding is largely focused on human development. (Kenya is already a huge beneficiary of the Power Africa programme, and there's more to come; but, even if it is not Health & Society, again the driver there is human development.) China, on the other hand, does infrastructure: chicken gets eaten, expensive loans are entered into, and folks end up with stuff that won't last very long. (Note to myself: return, on another thread, to the fact that what is needed is not forever-new infrastructure; it's a culture of maintenance.)
(3) I see Obama's visit in huge human dimensions. In biblical terms, the very stone that the builders rejected has now become the chief cornerstone. Or, if you prefer, the underdog got up, barked, and bit somebody. And what an inspiring tale for Kenya. The very place that on his last visit the BIG PEOPLE once dismissed him as mere "junior senator". Ha!
Nice yarn. After all US never really care about Africa. And so why again should we care about US?. It seem China somewhat cares more..and we need to pay attention to her.
No country cares for another country. And especially not Africa. Africans need to get rid of the sort of thinking displayed above and start caring about and for themselves.
Commentary from our "sister"/"brother" website:MOON Ki,
http://jukwaa.proboards.com/thread/9341/kenya-dumb-idea-president?page=1&scrollTo=133149 (http://jukwaa.proboards.com/thread/9341/kenya-dumb-idea-president?page=1&scrollTo=133149)Quoteso in my view the need to keep the perception that Chinese are here to exploit us wheas USA are here to help is what is making Obama take that risk explained in the article starting this thread. this brings to mind the very 1st USA ambassador to Kenya after we attained the flag and national anthem independence. he was expelled by old Jomo but he left a gem 'The Blacks and the Reds' which is still unavailable in our bookshops but a worthy read 50 years later.
This is the sort of mindset that got Africa f**ked during the Cold War: while the major protagonists were just playing games, Africa took it upon itself to fight a Hot War on their behalf. And the results are still evident today.
How did that happen? African "leaders" thought they were being clever in playing "East vs. West". And some today still think so. And the manamba have also bought into this idea that everything the West (especially the USA) does in Africa is a reaction to the East (now the Chinese). I think not; perhaps it has not happened in Africa, but elsewhere lessons have been learned since the Cold War. In particular, the USA does not see it as an over-riding concern that it should go all-out stymie Chinese actions in Africa. Had it been otherwise, we would have seen more US "action" in Africa. The current US approach is best captured in the views of Brzezinski, and he is a guy that even Obama listens to quite carefully. That view is that the USA has no really vital interests in Africa---if you disagree, then list them for discussion---and to the extent that the USA should be concerned with the Chinese foray in Africa, it should be on how best to share Africa and whatever it has. He is also of the view that African leaders are incapable of charting their own path and so are easily "bendable". I doubt that Obama is that cynical, but I see no evidence that his government has been particularly concerned with China in Africa, in the sense that they felt something there needed a "hard counter". (By evidence, I mean more than words.)
This is what seems to have caused the current excitement:Quote“And so my advice to African leaders is to make sure that if, in fact, China is putting in roads and bridges, number one, that they’re hiring African workers; number two, that the roads don’t just lead from the mine to the port to Shanghai, but that there’s an ability for the African governments to shape how this infrastructure is going to benefit them in the long term”
That seems perfectly sensible advice, and it is astonishing that it is even necessary. What the "the West is just jealous" brigade seems to have missed is the need to reflect on that rather obvious advice. There seems to be no end to "the West is saying or doing this and that because China is doing this and that". But what is really required is not Cold-War type of soft-headed claims; the better response would an objective consideration of whether Africa is really gaining from this new love affair with Kung Fu. A concrete argument to that end would be far better than quoting, out of context, some guy who dies ages ago.
Ah, yes; Obama's visit to Kenya:
* First, given the historical significance of Obama's becoming the US president and his connections to Kenya, it was "inevitable" that a visit to Kenya should happen at some point. It did not happen earlier for a fairly obvious reason---and even now whether or not he will meet with a certain assistant leader is still in doubt.
* Second, Obama has been acting: shortly after he became the US president, Kenya shot into the Top-10 of US aid recipients. (Some other countries saw their lot cut.) A quick look at where that money is going will show that none of it is intended to "counter the Chinese".
And the little matter of Kenya being "vital" to US interests in the region. That's Cold-War stuff that got many suckered into the idea that Kenya is vital because it is "an island in an ocean of chaos" or whatever. Today that little con is being applied in the context of terrorism, but look along that coast and consider who's really vital in that dubious "war"---hint, hint: Djibouti.
Quite a few years ago, I had the opportunity (in Georgetown) to hear Brzezinski talk, or perform, depending on one's viewpoint. He barely acknowledged Africa during the 90 or so minutes, so at "question-time" I brought it up---by specifically pointing out that Kenya was an "important ally" of the USA. I can no longer remember his exact answer, but it was something along the lines of (a) why exactly did I think Kenya was an "important ally" and (b) what exactly did Kenya have that the USA wanted or needed and couldn't get elsewhere. (Perhaps you have some answers?) Rather unhelpfully, he also pointed out that we live in a capitalist world, and in said world the USA works very hard to construct mutually favourable trade agreements with important allies. (How many of those are in Africa.)
So: what exactly does the USA have to worry bout Kung Fu's being in Kenya? The destruction of our wildlife?
In conclusion, RE Kenya:
(1) There will be no great bag of goodies from Obama's visit. Anyone who follows the trend of US Congressional budget stuff knows that most of the money---which would come through USAID---has probably already been settled on. (If you can't find your local diplomat, he or she is probably in Washington D.C. for the annual begging season.)
(2) The USA is not competing with China in Kenya: US funding is largely focused on human development. (Kenya is already a huge beneficiary of the Power Africa programme, and there's more to come; but, even if it is not Health & Society, again the driver there is human development.) China, on the other hand, does infrastructure: chicken gets eaten, expensive loans are entered into, and folks end up with stuff that won't last very long. (Note to myself: return, on another thread, to the fact that what is needed is not forever-new infrastructure; it's a culture of maintenance.)
(3) I see Obama's visit in huge human dimensions. In biblical terms, the very stone that the builders rejected has now become the chief cornerstone. Or, if you prefer, the underdog got up, barked, and bit somebody. And what an inspiring tale for Kenya. The very place that on his last visit the BIG PEOPLE once dismissed him as mere "junior senator". Ha!
I don't believe Obama and the US concern is the state of affairs of the human in Kenya. If they had those concerns, they would appreciate the pain Kenya has to endure in support of their war on terror...perhaps nudge kamwana towards a settlement with bandits. Kenya is turning into another Pakistan in front of our eyes.
It is indeed hilarious though, when a pawn thinks it is the one playing the player.
No country is an island. African needs friends. The more genuine the better. The more generous the better. China is just a better friend to Kenya than the US. A few notches better. US is not that bad...but considering it's wealth and the time it had that wealth...it could and ought to have done a better job. A poorer china has done far more in less time than US of A ever did.
First, China is not generous, and Africans need to free themselves of any such illusions. As an example, the billions Kenya got for the railway come with (a) interest rates and (b) costly insurance. That is contrast to US government aid that is entirely grants.
Second, we need not repeat what has already been stated about the expenditure of US money vs. China. What's more, it's easy to make an assertion such as yours---that China has done more---but I note that there is little concrete evidence to go along with the statement. For that reason, there is little there to discuss or debate, as there never is with any statement that borders on religious faith.
Third, "who has done more" done more does not particularly interest me. My view is that fundamental, positive, and long-lasting changes in Africa will be made only by Africans themselves. And the sooner they get on with it, instead of forever looking for endless "help", the better.
MOON Ki,
I don't believe Obama and the US concern is the state of affairs of the human in Kenya.
If they had those concerns, they would appreciate the pain Kenya has to endure in support of their war on terror...perhaps nudge kamwana towards a settlement with bandits. Kenya is turning into another Pakistan in front of our eyes.
Thanks to derided SGR...we will grow by 7% despite the tourism troubles and insecurity
http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/Kenya-headed-for-7pc-growth-/-/539552/2721396/-/fp70h3z/-/index.html
Second: As you may have noticed, I am more interested in humans rather than just economic growth or infrastructure. The government of Kenya itself claims that in addition to lost lives, bad shitting and poor sanitation costs Kenya something like 1% of GDP. Year after year. Economic growth while shit kills people and hurts the economy. What should that suggest to thinking people?
And you think economic growth is what? non-human development? you think a toilet is not infrastructure? why don't you show us one sewage network that US gov has done? Look here fool (i take great exception to using this word); economic growth captures human development. A country is complicated and there are 20% without toilet..while 20% have Ipads..you've to figure out thro' budgetting and free spirit of capitalism..what works. You cannot shutdown a country to concentrate on your 10 or 20 or 100001 human dev ideas...you allow free democracy and free capitalism to decide what the prioritirise are...and Africa (kenya) is working really hard towards that...free democracy (of ideas) and real capitalism (of money).
Economy growth for those not so daft measure nearly every HUMAN Development indicator...from social sectors to financial to manufacturing to retail....to name it. They just don't have to say human for you to understand MPESA affect humans.
MOON Ki,
You have consistently claimed that aid to Kenia shot under Osama or something even as some other countries have had their aid slashed. Could you please provide some sort of evidence for this? And apologies if I missed it. This thread is quite long and winding.
As far as I can tell, you have access to the internet (and Google), and you generally seem to be a quite capable sort. USAID data is publicly available to all, and you should have no trouble locating the right data. And you can rest assured that I generally do my homework before I make such claims. Doing people's homework for them is not something I care much for; but if you have data that you think contradicts my statement, that would be of interest.The information is 'out there and evidence is doing people's homework
The information is 'out there and evidence is doing people's homework
MOON Ki,vooke,
You have consistently claimed that aid to Kenia shot under Osama or something even as some other countries have had their aid slashed. Could you please provide some sort of evidence for this? And apologies if I missed it. This thread is quite long and winding.
You might want to reflect on the idea of borrowing money to increase GDP by 1% while at the very same time complaining that shit is costing 1% of GDP. To the extent that toilets are infrastructure worth the trouble, let's hear a bit more about those and a little less about Kung Fu and what he's up to.
No need to bother about the rest of your rant. My point remains: stop continually jerking off over GDP growth (and fantasies about the SGR) when people are literally dying from shit. Instead, I encourage you to think about how improvements in the economy can be made to benefit the majority and not just a few. The hint for you is to try and understand that a country's GDP can increase without a corresponding improvement in the people's lot.
You can use this link here http://www.foreignassistance.gov/web/RGAIntro.aspx (http://www.foreignassistance.gov/web/RGAIntro.aspx). Just select a year and hover the mouse over the country...There is a huge spike in 2009 which gradually comes down towards 2014, but remains above the 2007 mark.
EDIT. This http://www.foreignassistance.gov/web/OU.aspx?FY=2015&OUID=173&AgencyID=0&budTab=tab_Bud_Spent is even better.
It measures the number of toilets build per year amongst other things. people's lot.
How does SGR not affect many?
So, how many toilets per year are being built in Kenya? Why is shit such a costly business there? And, please, try not to get so emotional over these things.
Do you want a link or you'll take the advice your emotionally dished to vooke.
No, thanks. I don't need a link. I have access to fairly good information from GoK---the ones that say shit is killing people, costing the economy, and so on, but hardly any toilets are being built. Maybe they should start shitting on the SGR as it is being built; I've seen folks do such in India. :D
is obama still coming.
Bitter Malik seems to have found a way to make buck off his brother's name:He is one of those who will sell his mother for a song. I don't know how much goodwill he still enjoys from Obama. But selling private correspondence can't do much for it.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2015/06/28/Obamas-brother-sells-1995-letter-that-reflects-presidents-early-views/1591435536010/
He is, of course, breaking the law: copyright on a personal letter belongs to the writer, not the recipient.
He is one of those who will sell his mother for a song. I don't know how much goodwill he still enjoys from Obama. But selling private correspondence can't do much for it.
Maybe if Obama cared for his poor siblings; they won't have to hawk their private undies; Obama has made money from Dreams of My Father enough to start a family foundation. I think by time Malik is going this length; clearly he feels Obama is a jerk.Who says he doesn't? Malik? My hunch is Obama helps those who he judges to be willing to pull themselves up. if he thinks you are just looking for help finding a fifth wife, I can hardly blame him if he wants no truck with that.
In any case Malik is non-story; the real story here is that Obama despite being POTUS has no love from his kenyan family.He is one of those who will sell his mother for a song. I don't know how much goodwill he still enjoys from Obama. But selling private correspondence can't do much for it.
Maybe if Obama cared for his poor siblings; they won't have to hawk their private undies; Obama has made money from Dreams of My Father enough to start a family foundation. I think by time Malik is going this length; clearly he feels Obama is a jerk.
In any case Malik is non-story; the real story here is that Obama despite being POTUS has no love from his kenyan family.He is one of those who will sell his mother for a song. I don't know how much goodwill he still enjoys from Obama. But selling private correspondence can't do much for it.
Your earlier posts argued that Obama didn't care for Africa - a patent untruth - and now you've shifted to this falsehood that he does not love his Kenyan family. Well, have you ever posed that question either to Dani Sarah or Auma Obama?
So in your estimate, what should Obama be doing for Africa and Kenya in particular, that he hasn't yet done? Has he decreased the financial disbursement or aid assistance to Africa since he ascended to office in 2009? Look, Obama's tenure has been a continuation of his predecessors policies; every US president inherits policies from their predecessor and it's upon them to pursue or dispense with policies as they see fit -- the budget allowing or in the US national interest. Sometimes you don't have to reinvent the wheel, so they say.
I hope you and others will join us today as we celebrate the reopening of embassies between Havana and Washington. And if all goes well, next week, we might just see the signing of an historic nuclear accord between the US and Iran.
Yeah, and Obama will be in Kenya this month.
What exactly has Obama done for his family, Kogelo, Luo Nyanza, Kenya and Africa. WHAT? I expect more from somebody who understood with first hand experience what kind of problems those guys face. But he has done NOTHING. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA.
Actually he has not done nothing..he has spend his time in power ashamed of his roots and running away from them. He sneaks his family through the back door and did not even bother to attend the Aunt burial (an aunt he knew first hand) and choose to play golf.
Malik Obama calls him a big fraud. I couldn't agree more. A fraud is going to visit kenya for his own selfish reason as his regimes come to it's dying moments.
What exactly has Obama done for his family, Kogelo, Luo Nyanza, Kenya and Africa. WHAT? I expect more from somebody who understood with first hand experience what kind of problems those guys face. But he has done NOTHING. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA.
Regarding Kenya and Africa, I take it you assume, when you refer to Clinton or Bush, that whatever is done by a US government may be attributed to the president of the time. Or do you mean that those two personally popped up in Kenya and did something, and if so, what? If the former, then "what Obama has done" is easily established through a little homework.
And I am curious: what do you know of his family affairs that enable you to say that he has done nothing for his Kenyan relatives?QuoteActually he has not done nothing..he has spend his time in power ashamed of his roots and running away from them. He sneaks his family through the back door and did not even bother to attend the Aunt burial (an aunt he knew first hand) and choose to play golf.
How is he "running away"? Where is evidence for this "shame"? He lives in America, where he is extremely busy, and most the relatives you have in mind live in Kenya. Do you know the White House protocol for receiving non-formal guests? (By the way, the "back door" of the White House is not like the back door of your, or my, house, if that is what you are thinking.) As to how well he supposedly knew that aunt: really? Where did you get that information?QuoteMalik Obama calls him a big fraud. I couldn't agree more. A fraud is going to visit kenya for his own selfish reason as his regimes come to it's dying moments.
Last I looked Obama had a few more relatives than just this Malik fellow; you need to stop considering him as the entirety of the family. And what would that selfish reason be for his visiting Kenya now? Is there a particular reason why he should have visited Kenya before now? Do you know the basis on which he decides what place he will visit and when?
I have run into people who are bitter about Obama for all sorts of made-up "reasons". Yours are among the truly odd ones. You really need to let it go before this peculiar, self-imposed bile really affects you.
There is no need to substantiate the obvious as Jean Marie Seroney said. It self-evident that Obama has done very very little for his family.
, kogelo, nyanza,
The mere mention of President Barack Obama and his July trip to Kenya was causing her agitation because despite being Obama’s paternal aunt, her ‘ancient’ house could cave in and she continues being ravaged by poverty. “I don’t know what wrong or crime I committed in this world to deserve such a life. I don’t know who can bear this pain. It is painful,” the mother of two told The Nairobian.
very inhumane....Kibaki is strange. I will grant that. His case is in your face. He is African. He grew up with these relatives. They gave up opportunities for him. He has been built a multimillion dollar mansion that he never even uses next to their hovels. It's ridiculous.QuoteThe mere mention of President Barack Obama and his July trip to Kenya was causing her agitation because despite being Obama’s paternal aunt, her ‘ancient’ house could cave in and she continues being ravaged by poverty. “I don’t know what wrong or crime I committed in this world to deserve such a life. I don’t know who can bear this pain. It is painful,” the mother of two told The Nairobian.
http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/thecounties/article/2000167770/president-obama-s-aunt-is-a-charcoal-dealer (http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/thecounties/article/2000167770/president-obama-s-aunt-is-a-charcoal-dealer)
his brother selling letter most likely to get a dollar or two
http://www.people.com/article/president-obama-half-brother-sells-letter-1995 (http://www.people.com/article/president-obama-half-brother-sells-letter-1995)
Will never understand how these people kina kibaki, Obama and such turn out to be so robotic.... what is the use of all their fortunes ...their families will do well just by the name itself ..why not uplift their relatives ... I saw Kibaki brothers' kids walking barefoot in the desolate compound during the burial preparations yet the brother gave up his chance for Kibaki to get eduaction