Community forest:

SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WESTSIDE STORY AND LI'L ABNER:

SIMILARITIES AND FIFFERENCES BETWEEN WESTSIDE STORY AND LI’L ABNER: The Westside Story and Li’l Abner are two American musicals that on the surface appear amateurish but actually address deep social and political issues of their time. The two movie musicals, Li’l Abner and Westside Story, therefore address many similar but also some differing social issues. Li’l Abner is a comic satire, a mockery of the (Federal) political system, and gender roles in the United States. The Westside Story, in contrast is a romantic tragedy similar to Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, which among other things deals with issues of juvenile delinquency and gender. The issue of gender and masculinity is prominent in both musicals, as featured in the rite of Sadie Hawkins day festival in Li’l Abner and in the character ‘Anybodys’ in the Westside Story. Mammy Yokum’s concoction is believed to turn weaklings into strong and muscular men, something that eventually was used to convince Washington to spare Dogpatch (Li’l Abner’s town). While Li’l Abner, a comic strip is funny and humorous, the Westside Story is not at all funny. The Westside Story is a dark and tragic Broadway show. In the Westside Story, dance takes the leading role instead of song as in Li’l Abner. The entire cast in the Westside Story comprises largely of dancers, primarily kids with very little experience. In Li’l Abner, however song (singing) is a more important element and the cast consist of more experienced people. The story in Li’l Abner is primarily told through songs while that in the Westside Story is mainly though dance. A striking difference in the two musicals is their plots. Li’l Abner, unlike most comic strips deals with southern experiences and was set in Dogpatch, Kentucky. The Westside Story however is set in the New York City and addresses northern issues. Although the plot, cast and the mood of the musicals are different, they both address questions of politics, gender, love, and rivalry. Both musicals turned out to be very iconic and enduring. The endurance of both musicals is largely the result of the relevance of the issues they address through time and generation

BOOK REVIEW: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF KHALED HOSSEINI’S ‘KITE RUNNER’ AND ‘THOUSAND SPLENDID SUNS’ .

SUMMARY: The ‘Kite Runner’ and ‘Thousand Splendid Suns’ are two books written by the same author, Khaled Hosseini, an Afghan-American medical doctor and novelist. Both books are critical examinations of not only Afghan society and its political history but also Islam as a culture and the questions it raises about freedom, the rights of women and minorities. The history and geography of Afghanistan; its people, landscape, literature, politics, and culture are the main threads of Hosseini’s writings. The ‘Kite Runner’ opens with a phone conversation between Amir (now living in California) and Rahim Khan, his father’s friend and business partner (now living in Pakistan). Most of the rest of the book is a flashback on Amir’s life with his father (Baba) in Kabul until their relocation to California following the Russian invasion. The last part of the book dealt with Amir and Baba’s life in the United States and Amir’s dangerous trip to Afghanistan during the reign of the Taliban to rescue Hassan’s son Zohrab from the orphanage which brought him face-to-face with Assef, a Taliban executioner and child molester. Amir and his Baba fled their luxurious life in Afghanistan for the United States in 1981 through Pakistan. In the United States, they lived a life of poverty in California and Baba’s health was gradually failing. He finally died of terminal cancer the year Amir graduated from high school and married Soraya, General Iqbal’s daughter. Soraya, who once ran away with a man, was considered unmarriageable until she met Amir with guilt of his own from the past. The ‘Kite Runner’ is divided into two parts. The first part deals with the rule of the Shah, and the Soviet invasion in the late 1980s. ‘Thousand Splendid Suns’ however is in four parts: the Soviet occupation, the Mujahedeen uprising, Taliban rule, and the United States invasion following September 11, 2001. The book is set in Afghanistan (Kabul) and Pakistan. It followed the life of Mirriam from the kolba outside the town of Herat near the border with Iran were she was banished with her mother, through her attempted return to her father, and her subsequent forced marriage to Rasheed in Kabul. Mirriam’s life was filled with tragedy and ended in her execution by the Taliban after she killed her husband in an apparent self defense. She sacrificed her life to save Laila who reunited with Tariq (her childhood sweetheart) after a long separation during the Mujahideen wars. MAIN CHARACTERS The main characters in the ‘Kite Runner’ are Hassan and Amir, but the title of the book is an actual reference to Hassan’s kite running skills. ‘Thousand Splendid Suns’ on the other hand is a reference to a poem about Kabul by the 17th century Persian poet, Saeb Tabrizi. The main characters in ‘Thousand Splendid Suns’ are perhaps Miriam and Laila (co-wives of Rasheed). Like Hassan and Amir, the contrasting backgrounds of Miriam and Laila and their subsequent complicated relationship of love, loyalty and sacrifice reveals the intricate web of hypocrisy and double standard in Afghan society and culture. KEY POINTS: 1. Both books are also equally about parent/child relations, example Amir and Baba in the ‘Kite Runner’, Jalil and Miriam and Laila and Babi in ‘Thousand Splendid Suns’. The friendships between Amir and Hassan, Baba and Rahim Khan, Amir and Rahim Khan (in the Kite Runner) and between Laila and Tariq, Miriam and Laila, Miriam and Jalil, Miriam and Mullah Faizullah and Miriam and Aziza (in the Thousand Splendid Suns) are also very noteworthy. While Baba in the “Kite Runner” lived with his son Amir and Hassan, he was relatively emotionally detached perhaps out of guilt of his secret illegitimate child, Hassan. Jalil, in “Thousand Splendid Suns” on the other hand banished Mirriam and her mother, Nana to a remote kolba out of town but continued to secretly visit with gifts and toys. 2. Political conflict resulting from the Russian invasion, the Mujahedeen wars, and the Taliban reign of terror (public stoning, lashings, cutting of limbs, beheadings, gender segregation, banning of girls education, destruction of arts and literature, historical monuments and artifacts, etc). Women were decreed to wear the burqa and can only go out if accompanied by a male relative. The Taliban, it should be noted also destroyed the statues of the Buddha amid condemnation by UNESCO, and destroyed the writings of Rummy and Hafez as well as the music of Zahir Shah. Museums were burnt down as well. The Taliban tyranny would later be replicated in Timbuktu (Mali) under Tuareg invasion in 2012 and in Mosul (Iraq) under ISIL in 2014. 3. Class divisions in Afghanistan, with the wealthy and educated living a more secular conspicuous lifestyle (luxury cars, western clothes, cigars and whiskey) and the poor living in deprivation and religious conservatism characterized by the daily namas prayer and the burqa (hijab). Hosseini himself narrates from a class perspective, having been raised by a wealthy father in a wealthy suburb of Kabul with servants, nice cars, and frequent lavish parties. Hosseinis' high regard for the statues of Buddha, arts and literature especially by Rummy, Hafez, the paintings of the poet Khaja Abdullah Ansary, and many other fine things that may not mean much to many Afghans reveals his bourgeois traits. Hosseini indeed didn't also miss any opportunity to give the reader a lavish description of Kabul's cascading mountains, its lush vegetation and sparkling water, its beautiful sunsets, and bazaars and winding alleys. There is intense aspiration for nature. Amir and his father (Baba) and Zohrab, as well as Laila, Babi and Mami all aspired to go somewhere near the sea-California. Miriam also told Laila after killing their husband, Rasheed that they will go and live somewhere with lots of trees. Afghanistan’s class divisions also include a sad situation where women are judged by one set of rules and the men another. During the rule of the Shah and the Russian occupation, women fared much better than they did under the Taliban. Both Amir’s late mother and Laila’s father (Babi) were teachers. The notion of “honor and pride’ (nang and namos) is widely used to oppress women, deny their right to employment and movement, and in some cases justify severe punishment up to murder in case she brought shame in the family. In both books, we have seen Hosseini depicts an Afghanistan of powerful men taking advantage of powerless women; Baba and Senuba in the’ Kite Runner’, Jalil and Nana, and Rasheed and Laila in the ‘Thousand Splendid Suns’. Despite cultural sanctions, an underworld of "sin" continued to exist. Soraya General Iqbal's daughter eloped with a man, Tariq and Laila often derided as Laili and Majnoon (an Afghan equivalent of Romeo and Juliet ) had an intimate act in Laila's parents' living room, Baba had an illegitimate child (Hassan) with his servant's wife, and Jalil also had a 'harami' daughter (Miriam) with his female servant Nana. Senuba fled with musicians, an act Hosseini described as “worse than death” by most Afghans. Hassan, Miriam and Aziza are all haramis. The orphanages described in both books tell the horrors of sexual abuse, corruption, and deprivation. Both Zohrab and Laila suffered this fate. Also the Taliban's iron fist rule only fueled the smuggling of contraband goods: televisions, videos, and other clandestine activities banned were indulged privately when Talib officials were not looking. 4. Both books are also about the tragedy of war. Death, murder, rape, honor killings, how Assef (a Talib executioner) bragged about the massacre of Hazaras in Mazar-i-Sharif by going door-to-door executing whole families. The first wave of refugees such as Amir and his father fled the war, and the second wave of refugees such as Rasheed and his family who survived the war had to flee the resulting crumbling economy of the war and Taliban rule. KEY TERMS: 1. Hazaras: a minority tribe of Mongol origins dating back to Genghis Khans. They are mostly Shia Muslims and work as servants. Ali (the servants of Baba) and his son Hassan are Hazaras. 2. Nang and Namos: means ‘honor and pride’. It mostly applies to women’s conduct. 3. Harami: an illegitimate child. Hassan, Mirriam, and Aziza are all haramis. 4. Baba (Babi): means father. Amir calls his father Baba and Laila calls her father Babi. RECOMMENDATION: ‘And The Mountains Echoed’, also by Khaled Hosseini

Sidi Sanneh: The Gambia 1994 - 2014 : 20 years of pure unadult...

Sidi Sanneh: The Gambia 1994 - 2014 : 20 years of pure unadult...: How Dr Jamus Jammeh looked in July 1994 Tobacco Road, Banjul compounds The A(F)PRC regime of Alhaji Dr. Professor Yaya Jamus Junku... KAYJATTA

A GEOGRAPHICAL APPROACH TO THE ECONOMY: CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS

A GEOGRAPHICAL APPROACH TO THE ECONOMY: CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS JATTA KEBBA 08/25/13 SUMMARY: This paper is an analysis of the 2005 famine in Niger as well as the financial powerhouse in Wall Street, New York, from an economic geographic perspective as compared to the traditional orthodox economic analysis. It seeks to understand Niger and Wall Street’s unique position in the global (and national) pattern of uneven development, their social structures, and the characteristics and capabilities of their governing institutions. KEY POINTS: 1. Differences between the economist’s and economic geographer’s perspectives on the economy 2. Patterns of uneven development (national, regional, and global) as a necessity of global capitalism 3. Famine as a problem of distribution rather than production 4. Social constructions and representations of poverty and underdevelopment MOST IMPORTANT TERMS AND DEFINITIONS: • Place-refers to the specificity and uniqueness of a particular territory as a result of the interaction of physical features and social processes. • Space-refers to physical distance and area with defined boundaries from other entities. • Scale-refers to the size of the unit in consideration. For example, Niger could be considered at the national, regional or global scale. • Representation-refers to social constructions that describe and create representations of place, space and scale. LINKS: • Masochi to Manhattan versus low wage and high wage earners in the U.S. • Inequality as a product of capitalism • Profiteering versus human worth QUESTIONS: 1. How significant was the 2005 famine to the 2010 military ouster of Niger’s elected President? 2. Niger’s uranium was mentioned in the run up to the invasion of Iraq in 2002. What’s uranium’s contribution to Niger’s economy? 3. Why is so much Wall Street bashing? Is it seen as symbolic of the tyranny of capitalism?

JULY 22: NO REVOLUTION IN THE GAMBIA (Revised). Kayjatta Kansas City INTRODUCTION   Today July 22, 2013 marked 19 years of military rule in the Gambia. In the summer of 1994, disgruntled junior officers of the Gambia National Army (GNA) toppled the democratically elected PPP government of Alhagie Sir Dawda Kairaba Jawara that ruled the Gambia for thirty years, since independence from Britain in 1965. Jammeh’s role in that coup still remains unclear despite his repeated claim that he led it. Many Gambians believe that he was selected to leadership only because of his seniority. President Jammeh has since retired from the army after promoting himself to colonel and has transformed his military council (AFPRC) into the ruling APRC political party that has won four consecutive presidential elections widely condemned by independent observers as not free and fair. Despite his civilian façade, President Jammeh continues to rule as a military dictator, assuming enormous national security powers, and in the process destroying all the democratic institutions of the country. The legislature, the judiciary, opposition parties, labor unions, student organizations, the media, business associations, NGOs, religious groups, etc have all been reduced to the ground through various tactics of intimidation – including detentions, torture, and executions of perceived enemies. At the time of the July 22 military coup, the Gambia was enjoying relative peace and stability in a very unstable West African sub-region. The fall of Jawara’s PPP (peoples’ Progressive Party) government was considered “…sad times“for African democracy. At the time of the coup, the Gambia was considered to have the “longest functioning democracy in Africa”. The coup of July 1994 in the Gambia was part of a larger trend in Africa since January 1963 when soldiers brought down the elected government of Silvanus Olympio in Togo. This military intervention in Togo was quickly followed by Congo (DRC) and Benin in August and October respectively, when civilian governments in both countries were toppled. Many other African countries experienced military interventions, some repeatedly since then. Nigerian (January 1966, July 1966, 1975, 1976, 1983, 1985, 1990 and 1993). Ghana (1975, 1978, and 1979).  Gabon (1964), Angola (1977), Kenya (1982), Mali (1968, 1991, and 2012), Sierra Leone (1968, 1992, 1996, and 1997) Liberia (1980, 1989), Senegal (1962), Gambia (1981, 1994), Uganda (1971, 1986). The military have either toppled or attempted to topple governments in other countries including Ethiopia, Somalia, Egypt, Algeria, Burkina Faso, Guinea Bissau and Guinea Conakry. Jammeh came to power against this backdrop. The civil wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone were  still raging; and political sentiments about the military regimes of Valentine Strasser (Sierra Leone), General Sani Abacha (Nigeria), Ft. Lt. JJ Rawlings Ghana), and Col. Qaddaffi (Libya) were still fever high. However, this was also a time when military coups have been tapering off in African and around the world for some time. Many military regimes have or are beginning to return to democracy; hence the so-called "third wave democratization' in Africa. Therefore, the coup of 1994 in the Gambia could be considered a setback to the 'third wave democratization' in Africa. JULY 1994 REVOLUTION, OR IS IT? The aftermath of the military takeover of 1994 is still very controversial.  Jammeh’s ardent supporters often refer to it as “The Revolution”, while many other Gambians consider it to have fallen far short of its revolutionary promise. There is a huge gulf between ‘pretention and reality’. The AFPRC/APRC government, despite its rhetoric and lofty development ambition, barely qualify as a reformist regime much more a revolutionary one. It has to be admitted however, that Jammeh; considering his socio-economic background, could have been the ideal voice and hope for the struggling masses of Gambians. Part of the explanation for the initial support for the coup is that many Gambians were able to identify with him after decades of PPP squander and arrogance. But since coming to power, despite its rhetoric, the AFPRC/APRC has no radical economic or cultural vision. ‘July 22’, for nineteen years now, has not gotten rid of old ideas and structures in favor of new economic and social relationships. Vision 2020, the government's blueprint for socio-economic change has failed. Both economic and political power remains concentrated in the hands of a few army officers and their civilian cronies in the private sector. The masses of Gambians remain even poorer than they were under the civilian government that was toppled on July 22, 1994. There is no political education or actual re-orientation of the masses, partly because the coup makers on July 22 have no political education themselves. There is also no ideological underpinning to differentiate AFPRC/APRC from the civilian government of Jawara’s PPP. Instead of mass political education and re-orientation, decentralizing power into the hands of the people, and increased economic efficiency; widespread abuse of power and corruption continues to be the order of the day. Therefore, Jammeh is not even a “reluctant revolutionary” as in the case of Saikou Toure (Guinea Conakry) - his latest idol. And certainly there were no “Arusha Declaration” as in the case of Julius Nyerere of Tanzania. Through his poor governance and human rights violations, President Jammeh has alienated Gambia’s development partners around the world. Jammeh himself has not been officially welcomed in Europe or the United States-Gambia's traditional allies- for almost all of his entire two decades in office. The European Union further suspended much needed development funds to the Gambia following the recent standoff over the Jammeh-regime’s human rights obligations under the ‘Cotonou Agreement’. Fear and uncertainty continues to grip the nation. Creativity and self-expression are stifled. As a result, economic development (which goes hand-in-hand with good governance) remains an illusion. Also Jammeh’s “Back to the Land” call (a central tenet of ‘The Revolution’) which takes away productive land from the ordinary people and give them to the rich few is not helping his alleged revolutionary standing. The “Back to the Land” call by the APRC is no semblance to the “Green Revolution” of the Indian Punjab. CONCLUSION: A revolution, in order to succeed, must radically transform the economic, social, cultural, and political existence of a given people. The military regime of Yahya Jammeh, for nearly two decades from July 22, 1994 to July 22, 2013 has not succeeded, as it promised, in seriously transforming the Gambian economic and social structures in any profound way. Poverty and inequality remains high and continues to increase. Jammeh’s rule continues to be remembered for its human rights abuses more than anything else. And the socio-economic condition of Gambians is worse than ever. Therefore, the call for another struggle for independence still remains valid in the Gambia. This is well captured in the words of Alexander Hamilton (a United States founding father): "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit...".

Alioune Mbaye NDER - Aladji

KAYJATTA
An evening with Mbai Nderr. I particularly like the soft melody of this piece, led by the guitars and the keyboard. And you can hear the supporting percussions (a crucial element of Senegambian music) in those sputtering melancholic notes in the background. Great instrumentation and very relaxing !

IS MORALITY RELATIVE?

KEBBA JATTA

The question of morality touches on the broader question of ethics. In this paper, I will examine moral relativity within that broad context of ethics but often referring to justice as an example of a moral act. I will argue in favor of moral relativism, relying mainly on Aristotle’s moral theory as oppose to Emmanuel Kant’s Universalist theory. I use Kant largely because he appears to stand on a similar philosophical ground as Plato. Kant and Plato share a Universalist view of morality. They both believe that morality is absolute for all people at all times. This is perhaps the Newtonian view (after the British physicist, Isaac Newton) of morality as opposed to the Aristotelian moral relatively similar to Einstein’s (Relativity) theory of the universe.

Moral relativity is the philosophical theory that there is no objective standard to measure or judge what is right or wrong. This concept perhaps developed from the ‘social contract theory’ as explained in Plato’s Republic. The ‘social contract theory’ states that human beings are naturally unjust (immoral). Everybody acts on their desires and personal interest somewhat similar to John Locke’s political theory of the ’State of Nature’, which ultimately is bad for everyone in the society. This realization that extreme individual selfish acts ultimately undermine society’s wellbeing then prompts people to agree among themselves not to harm one another. This agreement then becomes the ‘social contract’ that forms the moral code leading to a peaceful, beneficial and a happy society for all, Glaucon stated in the Republic. Therefore, according to moral relativism, what is moral or ethical depends on what is generally accepted by each society. Morality therefore cannot be constant over time and space. In short, there is no such thing as absolute morality.

Critics of moral relativism argue that it makes excuse for horrible acts such as slavery and Nazism for example, which could then be considered by moral relativist as morally right in the past even though it is now considered by the majority of people as wrong. Professor Nam raised this issue in his lecture series by asking “what if the majority of the people come to consider slavery as morally right again in 2052?” These are valid questions that need to be adequately addressed by moral relativists. However, slavery (except chattel capitalistic slavery that existed in the United States and Europe) in some form existed in every society at some point. It is often a response to the prevailing economic conditions and labor relations that sometimes works for both slave and slave owner.

However, the question still remains: why do we act morally? Or to use justice as a specific example, why do we act justly? Before addressing this question, I have to point out that, as Professor Nam stated; this question assumes that morality actually exists? If so, then the question of whether morality is absolute or relative and the motive(s) for it arises. Morality is indeed real, by all indications, and according to Aristotle, it exists in relative terms. That is to say that morality varies from society to society across time and space. Professor McGowan cited the example of the Eskimo culture in his lecture series on YouTube. According McGowan, Eskimo parents kill their young ones especially female ones at their own discretion, and they also freely share their wives with visitors as a show of hospitality. These acts by Western standards are horrible acts, but there appears to be a number of environmental and cultural rationales for these practices by Eskimos. Aristotle argued that people act morally or justly because of their natural desire to do the “highest good” which is to achieve the state of happiness. This, in the Aristotelian sense is a natural urge to fulfill human nature rather than an abstract mysterious purpose that both Plato and Kant suggested. In the painting of the two philosophers (Plato and Aristotle) shown together in Dr. Nam’s lecture, Plato could be seen pointing his finger upwards while Aristotle directed his hand to the ground.  This depiction of the two philosophers, in a subtle way, illustrates their different philosophical stands. While Plato looked upwards to the sky for heavenly reasons why humans act morally or justly, a view shared by Kant; Aristotle looked for earthly reasons within human beings themselves for the motives. It is relevant to note this Aristotelian departure from his teacher, Plato’s transcendentalist motives for morality.

Aristotle viewed happiness as the use of reason and wisdom to perform virtuous acts.  Emmanuel Kant in contrast trusted that instinct more than reason results in actions that produce happiness. Therefore, according to Aristotle, virtue is the criterion for evaluating whether an action is morally good or not. These inward, naturalistic ways of explaining human motives for acting morally are referred to as the “Aristotelian Circle”. It stands in sharp contrast to the supernatural, abstract and mysterious ways of Plato which are now called the “Platonic Forms”. While Plato didn’t elaborate on these transcendental motives, Aristotle went to some length to explain his theory. According to Aristotle, two forces determine whether humans act morally or not. They are “character” and “action”, and both are not absolute but rather they depend on each other. “Character” determines an action to be virtuous. However, “character” is in turn formed by virtuous “acts” (actions). Aristotle believed that this two way interaction between “character” and “action” results in the state of “happiness” (Eudaimonia), which is the ultimate goal of human nature. “Happiness above all else is what we choose always for itself and never for the sake of something else”, Aristotle said (Andrew Bailey, 2011).

Critics of Aristotle’s theory points out that his argument could not be right because it runs in circles. They are quick to note that, it is a circular argument to say that “character determines action, and that action in turn determines character” as the “Aristotelian Circle” appears to indicate. For this reason, they argue that we have to accept Plato’s argument in the “Platonic Forms” because it does not have the circular problem that Aristotle’s theory has. My problem with the “Platonic Forms” is that we do not know what it is. Plato did not tell us what these forms are. Plato’s theory therefore may not have a circular problem, but it does have an epistemic one.

Professor McGowan also cited the examples of free speech in the United States versus China, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and the U.S. Founding Fathers as representing moral acts at one point in time and space and at another, representing immoral acts. This illustrates that moral relativism is self-defeating, according to Professor McGowan. However, McGowan warns us to be open-minded because our preferences may not after all be rooted in some absolute rational standards, and cited monogamy in Mormonism as well as modesty of dress and Janet Jackson’s ‘wardrobe malfunction”.

In his “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals”, Kant also identified ‘character’ as a precedent for moral acts, but unlike Aristotle, he added ‘good will’ as an indispensable constituent of ‘character’. Kant’s ‘good will’ is similar to Plato’s transcendental motives in that he (Kant) views ‘good will’ as the highest good, even worthy of happiness by itself. Kant’s view is problematic with regards to actions that are just and moral, for he believes that the mere act of doing something just and moral does not necessarily result in its moral worth. The ‘good will’ or the inclination to do the just and moral act must be present in order for the action to be morally worthy. This Kantian ‘good will’ is the mental disposition that Kant himself referred to as the “categorical imperative” (Bailey, pg. 659). Therefore an action accompanied by good will has moral worth, and an action not accompanied by good will has no moral worth, according to Kant (Bailey, pg. 650). In his ‘Third Formulation’, Kant urged one to act as if his actions should serve as a universal law of all rational beings (Bailey, pg. 662). But there is no universal law of all rational beings. Besides the physical laws of nature, much of the laws governing human actions are human constructs reflecting human interaction with one another and the environment through time and space. Kant in effect ascribed a fixed reference point for moral behavior, pretty much like Plato did. This is not consistent with human experience.

Human history itself is a testimony to the credibility of moral relativity. Human beings, as evolutionary beings, are in all respects non-static. Human character and action are in a constant flux as variables of time and space. Our changing values on some of today’s hot-button issues such as military conflict, assisted suicide, gay marriage, abortion rights, etc are very instructive in this respect.

DO AMERICANS TRUST THE MEDIA?@

KEBBA JATTA

November 10, 2012

Americans generally do not trust the media. Many of the people I interviewed expressed the perception that the media is too biased and that they collaborate with politicians and the powerful. The distrust for the media continues to rise throughout the past decade leading to the current low of 60% having no trust in the media, according to the PEW Research Center. Distrust for the media to report the news fully, accurately and fairly has been declining since the late 1990s but reached a new low in 2012 which is also a very divisive election year. According to the GALLUP poll, the sharp decline in media trust in 2012 is caused by the independents and Republicans, which is consistent with the 2008 election-year trend. This, according to GALLUP indicates the Republican distrust of election coverage by the media they often consider liberal. Perhaps for similar reasons, Democrats are more trusting of the media, with 58% trusting the media compared to 26% for Republicans. Along with the decline in media trust is a decline in American’s interest in political news. This is especially interesting in a bitterly contested election year like 2012 where the voters need to rely on the media for facts about the hot-button issues such as the economy, immigration, healthcare, women’s health, and gay marriage.

This high level of distrust in the media in a way undermines our democracy, and it may in the end impact on voter turnout and political participation. Trust in the media, to some extent is tied to the trust in government. When citizens show high approval for the government, they often tend to show similar high approval for the media. At the end of Clinton’s presidency (and its accompanying economic boom) and the terrorist attack in 2001 for example, trust in both government and the media was high, 78% and 54%respectively. However after the start of the Iraq war, trust in both government and the media took a nose-dive and never recovered since then. Public approval for both Congress and the Judiciary also remained dismal during this period.

The sharp decline in media trust from the late 1990s to 2012 and throughout George W. Bush’s rule could be attributed to the media’s perceived complicit in building the case for the Iraq war on the pretext of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

The media enjoyed a similar high public approval during Watergate (Nixon investigations) in 1974 and the McCarthy hearings in 1954. During Watergate in 1974, trust in the media was nearly 80% largely because of the media’s role in uncovering President Nixon’s connection to crimes which led to his resignation. The McCarthy hearings involved an investigation into the conflict between Senator Joseph McCarthy and the United States Army which later became known as the so-called “hunt for communist” in the United States government. The outcome of this investigation severely discredited Senator McCarthy and led to his political downfall.

Therefore it appears that public opinion about the media are formed during major landmark events such as Watergate, the Terrorist attack of September 11, 2011, the Iraq war, etc. The way the media handles these landmark issues goes a long way in influencing public perception of the media. Perhaps also that public understanding of what the media is affects its approval or disapproval. After all, the media is not well defined, and therefore may mean different things to different people. The local media (example Public Broadcasting Service, PBS) is trusted more than the larger cable networks such as the Cable News Network (CNN), FOX news and MSNBC. Perhaps the power , dominance and pervasiveness of these cable networks in terms their reach and twenty four hours coverage contributes to the distrust and public negativity towards them. Many of the people I interviewed on Face book and in the street said they do not trust the media, but added that they trusted the smaller local media more than the larger cable networks. They also expressed their generally favorable perception of the particular media outlet they obtain news from be it CNN, FOX, MSNBC or PBS. Don, a newspaper delivery man for USA-TODAY in Shawnee, Kansas said he does not trust the media but tends to trust KCUR (a subsidiary of PBS in Kansas City) and the Kansas City STAR newspaper more than all others. “I don’t believe the media tells the truth”, he said.  Jason Smith, a University of Missouri, Kansas City (UMKC) graduate in communications studies who did not identify with any news outlet expressed similar distrust for the media. “They are all biased because they always pick sides”, Jason said. Jacqueline, who identified FOX news as her favorite source of news, believes that the media collaborates with the politicians to misinform the public. Jacqueline said, “All the media tells you is what the politicians want them to tell you”.

However, despite the lack of trust for the media; it continues to be the preferred source of news for most people. The media continues to be trusted more than alternative informal sources of information. Many people who criticize the media still rely on the media for information when they need it.

The media’s projection of itself as “fair and balance”, a practice referred to as “false equivalence” does not seem to help its public image either. Giving equal treatment to both sides of controversial and highly divisive issues such as evolution versus creation, climate change, and gay marriage where public perception of the truth is in ‘black and white’ only results in more anger and distrust of the media.

The media’s perceived collaboration among its practitioners ( also called pack journalism or beltway punditry) and with politicians are major reasons for its low public approval.

IN RESPONSE TO CHIEF JUSTICE AGIM:

IN RESPONSE TO CHIEF JUSTICE AGIM’S FAREWELL COMMENTS:

http://www.freedomnewspaper.com/Homepage/tabid/36/mid/367/newsid367/8166/CJ-AGIM-DROPS-HIS-LAST-BOMBSHELL/Default.aspx

KAYJATTA

The Gambia’s outgoing Chief Justice Agim must be commended for coming forward to address what he called adverse allegations made by his critics that were expunged in the front page interview with the pro-government Daily Observer. Please see the Freedom link above. Chief Justice Agim said that “for not wanting to embarrass me, the editors decided to omit certain issues raised during the interview in their publication”. The Chief Justice further claimed that he is compelled to address these serious allegations lest his “critics and detractors … believe that the interview was doctored in his favor”.

The great Nigerian geographer, Reuben K. Udo, in his book ‘Human Geography of Africa’ made an analogy of Mozambique’s migrant workers to Apartheid South Africa as (human) cash crops. I understand that the Nigerian judges in the Gambian courts may not totally fit Udo’s description of human cash crops, but they are often viewed by the Gambian population as “mercenary judges” whose primary interest is their salaries rather than the rule of law.

Chief Justice Agim said he has been “unfairly labeled as fraudulent, corrupt, manipulative, a bully and sadist, an adulterer, and a practitioner of voodoo” during his twelve years of service in the Gambia.

Now the problem with Agim’s comments on these allegations is that he has disastrously failed to exonerate himself from these serious allegations.

Firstly, Agim said that he in the past refused to dignify these accusations by ignoring them, but now feels that he needs to address them. My question is that WHY THEN DIGNIFY THEM NOW Mr. Agim? If Chief Justice Agim was really interested in addressing these issues, why did he wait until the last minute after resigning his post and he is already outside the jurisdiction of the Gambia? If Agim is a truthful person who really cares about his own personal integrity, he would have confronted these allegations in a timely manner that would allow the establishment of the truth.

Secondly, in the allegation of adulterous womanizing, Agim did not put up any rebuttal. Instead he only demanded that his critics provide the prove with regards to a particular incident where a security agent confronted him and his mistress on a private property. Well this kind of argument may work in the court of law, but certainly not in the court of public opinion. Agim further admitted that this conduct of womanizing is common among men. I guess this means that the allegation is correct. This may not be a problem for a private citizen, but for a man of Justice Agim’s standing (a Chief Officer of the court) who is required by legal ethics to be of exemplary character, it is a huge problem.

Thirdly, in the case of fraud and corruption, Agim again offered no rebuttal. Instead he built his case around the claim that no adverse finding were made against him by the Gambia government or the British High Commission. Agim knows, I am sure, that fraud and corruption in the judiciary would not be limited to the particular funds he was talking about. He also knows that in the world in which he chose to work, the ‘big fishes’ like him were hardly caught especially if they remain useful to the government.

Fourthly, in the allegations of fetishism and jujuism (lets properly call it voodoo or witchcraft), Agim actually admitted to this one, saying that he came to the Gambia “already fortified” in witchcraft. This to me is very damning. A Chief Justice so steeped in a medieval terrain of mindset is nothing short of a disgrace to the 21^st Century Gambian.

Fifthly, on the allegations of bully and manipulator, Justice Agim appears to reveal his complete ignorance of how government and the judicial branch are supposed to function. Agim needs to understand that perhaps the only difference between the Chief Justice and the other justices is purely administrative. He has no moral or legal authority to coerce other justices to compromise their independent legal opinion. To say that as Chief Justice he had to fire or punish judges who undermine him or the state is totally ridiculous.

Since Agim lacked the courage and the will to defend his and the Court’s integrity against these serious allegations while he was still in office, he should be wise enough to remain quiet forever.

OBAMA WINS RE-ELECTION:

KEBBA JATTA

President Barak Obama won re-election Tuesday night after a sweep of the battleground states. Obama defeated his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney in all of the battleground states except North Carolina where Romney won and Florida where ballots are still being counted. Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Colorado, Iowa, and Nevada all went to Obama in an election that was widely considered very close.

Up to the time of voting, all the major polls showed the candidates in a dead heat, often within the statistical margin of error. For example the Gallup poll taken between November 1st and 4^th showed Obama at 48% and Romney at 49% with a margin of error of plus one (+1).

Ohio, one of the most critical swing states, is what gave Obama the victory. This Mid-Western state with 29 electoral votes sits in the heart of the auto industry, and benefitted from Obama’s bold intervention to bail out the auto industry in 2010 that saved many jobs. Romney, the Republican contender opposed the bailout arguing that Ford, General Motors and Chrysler should be allowed to go through bankruptcy. Most political analysts, including John King of CNN, believed that while Obama has several possibly pathways to re-election, Romney could not possibly win the presidency without winning Ohio.

The economy was the main driving force in the election. Romney’s campaign argued that the economy didn’t perform well under Obama’s four-year rule and so change is necessary. He often touted his business experience and cited the high unemployment rate, and promised to repeal the “Affordable healthcare plan” passed by the Obama administration. The Romney campaign also promised to cut down government spending and reduce taxes on all Americans, a move widely considered to be in favor of the rich over the middle class. The Obama campaign, on the other hand argued that he has inherited a bad economy from the previous Bush administration and since then the economy has stabilized and now improving, so we must continue to move forward and not return to the economic policies that led us into the recession. Obama planned to raise taxes on those who make more than 250,000 dollars a year.

The changing demographics, due to increases in the population of minorities such as women, Hispanics, African Americans, and young people; all of whom overwhelmingly voted for Obama helped tilt the election in the president’s favor. Romney’s positions on issues important to these groups such as women’s health, immigration, student loans, Medicare and healthcare made him quite unpopular and out of touch.

THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION:

KEBBA JATTA

The presidential election on November 6, as in the rest of the country, confirmed America’s continued shift toward more diversity and tolerance, despite Missouri’s Republican inclination.

The demographic of the 2012 presidential election in Missouri, where the republican challenger, Mitt Romney defeated the incumbent President Obama, is consistent with the national trend. The economy remained an overriding issue. However, healthcare, taxes, women’s issues, education (student loans), immigration reform were all key factors.

Kansas City straddles two states, Kansas and Missouri. Unlike Kansas which is an outright red state (Republican state), Missouri only leans Republican but it is not considered a tossup state. In 2008 however, Missouri received national attention as a major swing state that Barak Obama and Senator John McCain bitterly fought over. McCain in the end won.

Missouri has a large Republican base, particularly in Jackson County and the rural areas. Southwest Missouri, which includes Springfield and Joplin (both predominantly White, nearly 90%), is part of the “Bible belt”-a region largely populated by social conservatives. In contrast, Kansas City and Saint Louis with thriving university campuses and a progressive well-educated population form a strong democratic base in the state.

Although Missouri attracts no significant attention this year as a battleground state unlike Colorado, Ohio, and or even North Carolina; it has been often referred to as a bellwether state. No president has won the White House without winning Missouri since 1904 except on two occasions, in 1956 and 2008.

Missouri has no early voting system. All voting is done on Election Day. Polls opened at 7 A.M. and the lines were long but moving steadily at Central United Methodist Church on 52^nd and Oak Street where this writer visited. Many voters were upbeat and highly motivated.

One voter called Scott said he arrived at the voting station with his wife at 8:45 and encountered no problems at all. Scott disclosed that he was a Republican and so was voting for Romney.  Scott said his main concern was the economy and taxes. This writer also spoke to two young ladies, Theresa and Vickie, as they leave the polling station. They said voting was a smooth process despite the long line. They said they voted at the same location in 2008 and in both occasions voted for the Democratic contender. Both ladies reported their main concern to be student loans and healthcare. James, an African-American man from Atlanta who now resides in Kansas City also said he encountered no problems, and was voting for Obama. His main concern was socio-economic inequality and bad neighborhoods. Susan, a middle-aged White woman, very media savvy, said she voted Democrat and her main concern was women’s issues such as reproductive rights and equal pay. There was one very outspoken voter, Robert Scott, standing in the line to vote. He was approached by this writer for his opinion. Scott claimed he has a master’s degree in mathematics, and did not waste time in launching a vicious attack on the Republican vice Presidential candidate, Paul Ryan and his ideological goddess, Ayn Rand. Rand was a Russian-American objectivist philosopher whose philosophical views of individualism and self-interest appeals to many conservatives. Paul Ryan himself is an outspoken and controversial figure in his own right. The Ryan budget, which he authored as a congressman, as an alternative to the President’s budget radically reduced government spending and further deepened partisan divide.

President Obama’s victory was assembled largely from a coalition of minorities and progressives- African-Americans, Hispanics, women, young people and other minority groups. This has spelled big problems for the survival of the Republican party that continues to court older, conservative, White males.

LIMESTONE OUTCROP ON BLUE RIVER ROAD, KCMO:

SOCIAL MEDIA: A TOOL FOR MARKETING

KAYJATTA

According to Annie Greenberg, a web producer at Channel 41 (NBC), “social media is half marketing and half journalism”. Ms. Greenberg, during a speech to the reporting students at UMKC, underscored the importance of social media as a two way conversation for generating feedback, networking and public relations. Social media such as twitter and face-book help build a company’s brand by increasing its reach and influence, she said.

Defined as an interactive platform for individuals and communities to create and share information, social media is considered a key component in making today’s businesses relevant. When used as live tweets or face book posts, they may represent a personalized wire service for both the individual and the corporation. Unlike the traditional print media, social media is relatively inexpensive and immediately accessible. Therefore, social media is considered to have a decentralizing and democratizing effect on the way information is created and distributed. It is an increasingly important tool for those working in sales, public relations, human resource, and research and development.  Social media increases business exposure, increased traffic, and sales leads. The short headlines used in social media makes it especially suitable for marketing.

Ms. Greenberg also touched on the importance of social media in fighting crime, as well as the problems inherent in its use such as loss of privacy, defamation, copy right violations and credibility. She cited the Kansas City Police Department (KCPD) for utilizing social media, YouTube particularly, to apprehend criminals. The Courtney Love twitter defamation case was a landmark case that makes tweets (twitter posts) discoverable and admissible as evidence in a court of law. The rock star Courtney Love posted a negative comment on twitter about a fashion designer she had a dispute with. Those tweets were later admitted as evidence in a defamation case brought against the singer. Postings by individuals and corporations on social media may also be subject to copy right laws. However, postings on social media may lack the level of credibility that the traditional media forms such as print has.

Glacial striations in KCMO :

Following nature's trails: glacial striations from the last ice age (Pleistocene ) in Kansas City, Missouri

DOES RELIGIOUS BELIEF REQUIRE RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION?

DOES RELIGIOUS BELIEF REQUIRE RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION?

KayJATTA

INTRODUCTION:

Religious belief that lays claim to truth must require a rational argument for its justification. Rational arguments for justifying religious belief utilize objective scientific reasoning. In contrast, some religious beliefs or decisions may be dependent on personal nature and emotions rather than reasoning. In such cases, religious beliefs are not grounded in scientific objectivity or the intellect. Just like music, religious belief can be appreciated intellectually or emotional (personal nature).
This paper attempts to examine religious belief from a rational argumentative point of view. I will argue that one’s religious belief in God requires a rational argument for its
 justification. Lack of a rational prove of one’s religious belief defeats any purpose for such belief, in my view.

MAIN ARGUMENTS:

“It is wrong to belief in anything that is based on insufficient evidence”, said Alvin Plantinga. This argument appears inconsistent with revealed theology. Revealed theology as contained in the scriptures largely provides no rational justifications for what it claims. Since most religious beliefs are based on these scriptures, then religious belief invariably becomes a question of faith rather than rational proves.  Therefore, revealed theology about one’s belief that is not based on rational arguments is not justifiable.
 This position is also supported by classical foundationalism and evidentialism.  Classical foundationalism argues that a belief is justifiable if it is self evident, evident to the senses, and incorrigible. That is to say that a belief is justified if it is based on a basic belief.
Evidentialism on the other hand states that a belief is justified only if there is evidence to support it. Perhaps natural theology based on reasoning attempts to fill this evidential
 void in beliefs based on revealed theology. Therefore, St. Anselm's ontological argument and St. Aquina's teleological and cosmological arguments are not adequate
 justifications. David Hume, Liebniz, and John Leslie Mackie all dispute the compatibility of evil with the existence of an all-powerful and benevolent God. 
Therefore, St. Aquinas’ argument that the existence of God is self-evident because it exists naturally in us is not supported by evidentialism. Aquinas’ argument is a derivative of St. Anselm’s ontological argument which states that “something is self-evident if it is understood as soon as the terms are known”. It is important to note however that  Aquina's arguments are largely reactions to or re-positioning of an earlier Greek philosopher, Aristotle's postulations.
William James’ contention that “wherever there is willingness to
 act, there is some believing tendency” also touches on this ontological argument. James admits that “our passional and volitional nature (that is our nonintellectual nature) lay at the root of all our convictions and beliefs”. But Clifford perhaps countered that “belief is desecrated when given to unproved and unquestioned statements for the solace and private pleasure of the believer …”. Huxley may have said it more bluntly when he stood for “…not pretending to belief what one has no reason to belief”. Huxley's contention therefore refutes Alvin Plantinga's argument that "belief in God is a basic belief that requires no further justification".

Perhaps the greatest obstacle to justifying one’s religious belief is the “problems of evil and omnipotence”. The problem of God being all-knowing and all-merciful  and yet
 allowing so much evil in the world, presents a huge difficulty in rational justification of His existence. The presence of so much evil in the world appears to indicate a restriction on His powers. Is this the best He can do? Several scholars have approach this problem in different ways, however. There is a suggestion that "evil is a counterpart to good". That is to say that God could
 not have created good without creating evil alongside it. This argument itself limits Gods powers and undermines the attribute of omnipotence assigned to Him. Another
 argument to counter this contradiction in the existence and nature of God and once religious belief is that "evil is necessary as a means to good". This argument means that evil is not a counterpart of good, but rather a pathway to good. This idea  again conflicts with idea of an omnipotent God. It is also argued in Mackie (pg. 102) that the presence of evil is not about God at all, but rather human free will. Since God has enabled human beings with freewill, the presence of evil is a question of human choice between good and bad. Evil basically, according to this argument is a necessary consequence of freedom. These adequate and fallacious solutions to the problem of evil are far inadequate because they all place restrictions on God's omnipotence. We are still presented with the paradox of omnipotence. "Can an omnipotent God create things which he cannot subsequently control? Or Can an omnipotent God make rules which then bind him?", (Mackie, pg. 104). Therefore, according to John Leslie Mackie, unqualified omnipotence cannot be ascribed to anything that continues to exist through time and space. This appears to imply that the nature of existence itself contradicts the idea of omnipotence. 
 The question of the existence of an omnipotent God is very problematic, at least philosophically. And since one's religious belief invariably centers on this idea of omnipotent God, no one therefore can rationally justify his or her religious belief. Rational justification is however  necessary for any religious belief. Therefore Blaise Pascal's probabilistic argument in favor of the lack of rational prove for religious belief is both unethical and intellectually dishonest. This position is rejected by Clifford as already indicated above.
 
CONCLUSION:

In this paper, I have attempted to argue that one's religious belief  do require a rational arguments for its justification. I have presented a review of the literature concerning the
 philosophy of religion and developed my argument largely from there. I have examined the early theories about religious belief and its premises, particularly the
 existence of an all-powerful and all-knowing merciful God from St. Anselm, St. Aquinas ,and impliedly Descartes . I have also visited the British empiricist  David Hume; John Mackie; the rationalist philosopher, Liebniz; as well as Alvin Plantinga; and William James.
I have argued that the ontological, teleological, and cosmological arguments presented are far inadequate justifications for one's religious belief. I have also presented various
 argument for an against the" problem of evil" and the "problem  of omnipotence. I have disputed Pascal ,Plantinga ,and James's arguments for a rationally unjustified religious  belief. I have argued that rational argument for one's religious belief is absolutely necessary to justify such a belief to rational beings such as human beings. I have rejected Hume's Philo and instead somewhat embraced Cleanthes' humanistic view of the universe. I have largely agreed with Mackie's rejection of an unqualified omnipotent God.