₦airaland Forum

I'd also never heard of her prior to reading the thread.

Tayo-D

I will have to admit that I am beginning to find your arguments less and less compelling. I do not anticipate we'll be agreeing on any middle ground; we are on very different ends as you rightly noted.

Presenting ones opponent or his ideas in an extreme light, in my mind, serve a very similar purpose, as I mentioned in my earlier post. Your accusations against Al Gore, Biden and his cabinets on private jets, not paying taxes and seeing themselves as separate from the rest of us, are unfounded assertions; these speculations only serve to weaken your position. Even if your statements were entirely accurate, picking out a handful of personal contradictions is not sufficient reason to discredit an entire cause.

About your take on the cause of the economic crisis, I think you've got a whole lot more home work to do. If there are any leading economists out there that share your position on the underlying reasons of the crisis, I would assure you they are certainly in the minority. The Subprime mortgages and government efforts to increase accessibility of loans and home ownership are not new ideas to me. I don't dispute these government efforts may have contributed to the crisis. However, the government did not 'force' and brokers or bankers to make loans. These unscrupulous individuals and establishment in pursuit of their own interest plainly preyed on these vulnerable population. You must have heard of practices of lenders not vetting people's income, providing deceptive and misleading introductory rates, and engaging in other dodgy practices. My friend, in pursuit of self-interest, a quick buck and disregard of the interest of others, lenders and bankers made, by far, the major contribution to the current mess. As I mentioned previously, lack of adequate government supervision and oversight was another significant contributor. For you to deny these facts rather than address them head-on further weakens your position.

Obama's housing plan proposal to help mortgage defaulters, as you have rightly said may help some people who irresponsibly obtained mortgages. How would you propose distinguishing between the responsible and irresponsible ones after the fact? Many responsible people were caught in the trap and there are no full-proof ways of distinguishing them from the others. How about hard working families with both parent laid-off because the industries in their little town have closed? Should there be no safety nets to prop them up till they can regain their footing? Should they be left to lose their housing and healthcare coverage?

Your aversion to government is quite puzzling to me. Correct me if I'm misstating your position, but it seems your ideal world would have little or no role for the government, individuals would all be in the pursuit of their self-interest. That picture seems a little too close to an anarchic society to me. Take a close look at the progressive, prosperous, admirable and happy societies in today's world. Some Scandinavian countries including Sweden, Norway, Denmark, I'll argue epitomize the importance to striking the right balance between capitalism and government. The pursuit of self-interest has to be tempered by rules and regulations which are only enforceable under a governmental structure. Banks in these countries as well as US' northern neighbor, Canada, have been spared the worst of these worldwide crises mainly because of the regulations they had in place to temper radical capitalism. I am yet to see any logical, let alone convincing, arguments that exonerates radical capitalism as the principal underlying cause of our current crisis.

If you play a little closer attention to government that have become tyrannical, I would argue that the downward spiral resulted from each of their leaders pursuing their own self-interest and disregarding the interests of their populace and underprivileged. The pursuit of self-interest and its brainchild selfishness of individuals is one of the problems plaguing the African continent. I find it amusing that you make a connection between an individual pursuing his interest and acting neighborly, sounds contradictory to me.

I am taking aback by your explanation of the message of the Bible. You are saying that the bottomline is the individual. Think of yourself first; in everything you do, your interest must be paramount- is that the your understanding of the Bible message? I thought the defining characteristic of Christianity was selfless behavior as exemplified by Jesus. Can you please help me reconcile the ultimate pursuit of my self interest with Jesus' life. Are you saying Jesus could careless about the poor and sick? Did he ultimately act in his own self interest, and are we called to simply act in our own self interest?

Tayo, quite interesting reading your response.

You don’t think Limbaugh demonizes his opponents? By demonize, I mean he misrepresents and ‘extreme-ifies’ their position. Look at the piece you posted: “The president who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters. He intends to be the master. You're the slave. You must sacrifice.” Mr Limbaugh makes a jump from sacrifice, all the way, to slaves and masters. As in this piece, I have seen similar tactics in much of Limbaugh’s work. Presenting his opponents in such extreme and threatening ways, I think, makes him very popular with his base, but also makes it quite hard for liberal or even moderate opponents to engage in intellectual discussions with him.

I find your understanding of self-interest interesting. I would place self-interest somewhere on the spectrum from altruism to selfishness, hence my saying that it is one step removed from selfishness. The degree of self-interest is clearly a spectrum; liberals and conservatives may fall on different ends of this spectrum. I don’t see how Obama’s policies advocates complete abnegation of ones self-interest. Please educate me on any of his policies I may be overlooking. He, however, calls for greater personal responsibility.

Your analysis of the cause of the current economic and banking failures, I find quite troubling and frankly misguided. Majority of economists would agree that the primary contribution of the government to the failures was the lack of proper regulations. Banks, bankers and mortgage brokers went wild in the pursuit of their selfish interests; this was radical capitalism on steroids. The culprits pursued their interests at the expense of the welfare of others.

I would hate to live in a world where radical capitalism is the order of the day. What would happen to people who cannot be productive? Disabled people, sick people, mentally retarded? What of when you are too old to be productive? It would be a truly hellish place if everyone simply pursued their own interests.

Thanks for the Bible lesson. But I am sure you know many dodgy people historically have found Bible passages that support and illustrate their ideas. My understanding of the overarching message of Jesus and the Bible is for people to sacrifice, care for the poor and act selflessly, all of which Jesus exemplified. Please let me know if you think I am completely misunderstanding these major tenets of the religion and what you think should be.

http://africa-onecountryaweek..com/

Of course, it is very unfortunate and sad Nigeria is not a part of the G20. But, Mr President may have missed the memo that G20 memberships are not randomly doled out on a platter neither can a country bribe its way into the exclusive club.

Rather than lamenting over their failures, our leaders should tighten their bootstraps and get the $%^* to work. Give us a top 20 economy, and not even neo-imperialists can keep Nigeria out of the G20.

A few thoughts

I really tried not to get sucked into this Limbaugh discussion, but I guess I could not resist,

First, we all have several pulls on our time. I chose to spend my time on things/people based on prior experiences and a bit of research. Limbaugh is certainly a long way down my list; I find him the least bit appealing nor do I think he is intellectually stimulating. I admit my views of Limbaugh may be based to limited information, but my encounters with him in news articles, interviews and even after reading the piece above give me greater confidence in my views.

However, Tayo, I think your comments, about people tending to read/listen to people they agree with while relying on sound-bites to characterize the opposing view, are very true. Liberals and conservatives alike fall into the same trap. Taking that idea one step further, not only do people not really listen to opposing ideas, they set out to intentionally or subconsciously misrepresent, polarize and demonize their opponents. These tactics are frequently applied by Limbaugh and other ideologues. In the piece above Limbaugh repeatedly jumps to wrong conclusions about the intended results of some of Obama's policies. Nobody is advocating to ridding individuality. Nobody wants to jettison individual rights. I find it difficult to see how an intellectually rigorous person could come to such conclusions.

Self interest. In my mind, I see self-interest as one step removed from selfishness and self-centeredness. I guess the degree of self-interest varies on the spectrum from altruism to selfishness. There are clearly benefits from acting in ones self-interest but there are also major problems. No one would dispute that the current financial collapse was fueled, in part, by the pursuit of self-interest and disregard for others. The position held by Limbaugh appears incredibly shortsighted. I would argue that the blind pursuit of self-interest for immediate fulfillment and gratification is one of the major ills threatening the fabric of today’s society. What happened to the discipline forgoing little benefits today for greater ones in the future? Any reasonable person would be aware of the terrible ills the Limbaugh version of capitalism has caused the world; irresponsible exploitation of natural resources and people are just two.

Another larger point is the inconsistency in the arguments as presented by Limbaugh conservatives. I would suspect many of these conservatives are Christian. I see deep inconsistencies when one touts the teachings of Jesus on one had, and on the other radical capitalism. I think the Bible and the predominant Christian doctrine repeatedly calls for sacrifice, care for the poor, and selflessness.

http://africa-onecountryaweek..com/

I agree that adoption regulations systems in many African countries are quite lax. A recent BBC audio documentary reported that some so-called orphanages and international adoption agencies lure poor parents to give up their children for financial reward. Those actions are morally reprehensible. I am not advocation trading or selling of kids. There should be regulations in place!

I however, do not see a problem with requiring a donation token to an orphanage from which a child is adopted. I don't see it as buying the child but as a sign of appreciation.

I am a celebrity and I want to adopt a poor African child. But why are people so repulsed?

I got to thinking about this issue a few days ago after reading a status message on a friend’s Facebook page that read, “I'm not sure how I feel about this whole "I'm so rich I'm going to adopt a poor African child" thing.” Today another friend’s read, “Madonna: please leave the African orphans alone, you worthless attention seeker, u are doing the world no good with your publicity stunts, clean up ur marital mess before bringing innocent african kids into ur home, ”

Some people, at least a few of my friends, have a basic knee-jerk repulsive reaction, or as some ethicists have described, “yuck factor ” response to the news of Madonna wanting to adopt yet another poor African orphan. With the media flurry fanning flames of controversy, we itch for glimpses into the many unanswered and unanswerable questions. What is Madonna true motive? Is she simply yearning for some attention? Does she really care? The list of questions is unending. However, the bottom line is that we find it difficult to shake the thoughts of imbalance of power, class, socioeconomic and racial categories that the scenario evokes. Madonna, a rich white western celebrity wants to adopt a poor black African orphan.

The yuckiness expressed by my two friends, both of African decent, is most certainly not universal. I suspect the initial reaction people have to this scenario is dictated by what side of this divide they most relate with. I think exploring the reasons for our initial responses in greater depth and considering empirical information may lead to reconsidering our previously held positions.

Here are some simple basic facts. There are millions of orphan in Africa today, many of whom have lost both parents. The traditional systems of families and communities taking on the responsibility for orphans have in recent times been threatened by the HIV/AIDS. Millions of children are left alone to care for themselves and siblings, and some are privileged to be housed in orphanages. Orphanages are usually under-resourced, understaffed and teeming with children. I need not continue spouting statistics and cliches; but my point is that the reality for so many children is life in despicable situations. Some would say, "But can such children not have some level of happiness and satisfaction in their lives?" They absolutely can; the human spirit has a way of making do with whatever life/fate brings.

However, I have a very difficult time justifying depriving such a child of a chance of having a better life. I think having the luxury of stable meals, attention of care givers, and education, to say the least, qualifies as a 'better life.' Adoption is the least terrible of the few options available to these children. Irrespective of the dodgy motives of Madonna or any other adopting parent, I think the best interest of the child should be the ultimate trump card.

I am certainly not advocating for the removal of kids from poor families simply because they would have a better life in a richer one. The calculation is, however, a whole lot simpler when you talk of orphans with virtually no other options.

http://africa-onecountryaweek..com/

http://africa-onecountryaweek..com/

Pope Benedict is in the media spotlight again. I guess we should expect regular international coverage, being that he is at the helm of a faith that boasts billions of followers. However, the perverse interest of myself, and that of many fellow world citizens, is not spiked by the gracious and noble achievements this holy man makes but by his major gaffes. Pope-related stories would prove boring if they ranted off narratives filled with things we expect from a Pope, but not so of a little Pope-scandal, whether real or artificially inflated. Hmm, sensational!

In January, the issue of contention was over Bishop Richard Williamson whose excommunication was lifted by the Vatican. Reports later surfaced of Williamson's controversial views, especially of his denial of the holocaust. As you can imagine, the response was absolute outrage from the Jewish community and many others. The Pope later released a letter admitting to mistakes in the handling of the matter. The situation was a real public relations debacle, which was blamed on lack of communication within the high echelons at the Vatican and the inadequacy of their spin establishment.

Now, the Pope is visiting Africa, his first visit since assuming the position in 2005. However, the predominant media coverage in Europe and America is not of the great spiritual and symbolic significance of the event, but the coverage is about the potential public health nightmare the Pope's recent statement may cause. So, what did the Pope say and what's all the huff and puff about?

Pope Benedict is quoted by Reuters as saying condoms are not the solution to the AIDS crisis and may serve to "increase the problem." Since his statement was translated to English, there have been questions about the appropriate exact wordings. However, the message was quite clear: forget about using condoms, they risk making the HIV/AIDS problem worse. The position of the Vatican on the use of condoms and its sole support for abstinence is very well known; this stance has even been previously publicly ratified by this Pope. But the uttering of what is arguably a very careless statement is an example of an instance when the the potential resulting harm completely obviates any initial good intentions, however noble them may have been.

Here are some well known, dare I say, common-sense facts. HIV/AIDS afflicts tens of millions in Africa; millions have died and many more will die from the disease. Condoms, when properly used, cut the rates of HIV transmission, as well as transmission of other STDs, to less than 10%. Obviously, abstinence is the only full-proof method; but, as the world experience very clearly continually shows, it is not fool-proof. There is also no expert consensus that the use of condoms significantly changes people's level of sexual activity.

I understand that the Pope is a deeply religious man, clearly with strong spiritual convictions, which he may feel compelled to share. But Pope Benedict is neither an epidemiologist nor a public health specialist and should exercise extreme caution when dabbling into unsure territory especially when many lives, thousands and millions of them are at stake.

To many, Pope Benedict is a demigod. He speaks for God and has the utmost respect of many. I do not envy such responsibility nor do I crave the power his position wields. I can very clearly envisage religious poor African peoples led by some high-school educated minister latch on to the words of the Pope; abandon condoms and leading to HIV spread between lovers and worst of all to the resulting children. What a wonderful chicken-out excuse to be wielded by many, "the Pope says, so I won't use a condom." If the fornicators and adulterers deserve the retribution of HIV/AIDS for their sins, their faithful innocent spouses and resulting children do not.

http://africa-onecountryaweek..com/

How much do you know about the continent?

A little? Here is a blog that aims to encourage you to learn one or two things about one African country/week; you would cover the continent in just 1 year.

A lot? You can show-off and share your knowledge.

Visit
http://africa-onecountryaweek..com/
"The mention of 'Africa' conjures images of hunger, disease, instability and backwardness. These ideas, which partly derive from media snapshots, are only a part of the African story. Many Africans, myself included, are piqued by this partial image of Africa, but many of us know very little about the African story -the peoples, the cultures and the history. Please join me as we explore and learn something about one African country every week. Share thoughts, questions, lessons and epiphanies."

If you click the 'Follow this blog' link, you'll be notified when a new post is added.

Join the adventure!!