Judge Kriegler has given his verdict: last years elections were not stolen, period. The good retired South African Judge couldn’t wait to have his report. He has tagged the stolen elections claim as a mischievous creation of the civil society. Those hailing Kriegler even add the fact that he is WHITE for good measure of assurance while those vilifying him have fallen to the time-tested Kenyan political parlance of money has been poured for a predicted report.
And with that singular sharp verdict from Kriegler, Kenyans have been found guilty of living a collective political lie in the last eight months. By extension Judge Kriegler is calling Koffi Annan who gave him the job bluff. Poor Annan is therefore guilty as charged for presiding over a dispute that never was. Know what? Kriegler has earned his money and must move on to other more important phases of his twilight life.
While Kriegler and his team traces the genesis of the flawed polls to INCOMPETENT ECK spiced with an uneven political playing field, the honourable Judge conveniently fails to see the CAUSE-EFFECT phenomenon staring him in the face begging to be busted. But again you need to be a lawyer schooled in clever antic of subjectivity and obtuse magnification of smokescreens at the expense of the wider picture to decipher the ‘seasoned’ legal mind of one ex-appellate Judge Kriegler.
In one sweeping conclusion, Kriegler blames partisanship orchestrated by incumbency and its surrogates and with the same wave of the hand he closes his eyes at the correlation. Well, association may not necessarily be causation, but once you remove the bias and confounders then all you have relating the response with the underlying factors is CAUSE unless you are playing statistics with chance. Poor witness testing before Kriegler become cannon fodder for vilification and not even polite, respectful reminders from
Effect no cause
The law must surely be an ass. Consequently practitioners of the legal profession must be ass riders. While governance by law is what distinguishes human beings from beasts of the wild, ones ears are often assaulted by lawyers presentations that is mostly trivia clothed as technicalities. Most cases are dismissed off hand on the same technicalities oblivious of their weights, beneficial or catastrophic. No wonder the legal cartel fashions itself as the exclusive club of LEARNED FRIENDS.
Please don’t bore me with the pedagogical origins which only succeeds in inflating personal egos. The woods are too thick and finding our way out won’t be an easy task. We are back at the beginning where we started it all. Can some smart Kenyan please propose the next catchy/appropriate commission before Cockar returns the known verdict ACTED WITHIN HIS POWERS?. No probe fatigue please!
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Does Barack Obama’s Skin Colour Matter, Really?
My answer to the above question is that it really does. Well, this is so if the reactions and comments of an American citizen on BBC, sometime this week, are anything to go by.
He said that Americans are not foolish and are, therefore, not going to elect a black man as their president. “Etiquette alone dictates that we don’t allow a black man to move into a house which is itself called the White House,” He said, quite forcefully.
He distastefully went on to say: “If Barack Obama had a White wife, Americans would have tolerated him. But there is no way Americans will have a black woman masquerading in their White House!”
If this one American (white American, I presume) voices the prejudices of millions others out there, then Barack should brace himself for “an extremely tight and asphyxiating” fight for the White House.
But Barack sounded his answer to anyone who might try to use such tactics (such as using his “skin colour” to sway the voters) when he made his exemplary speech during the Democratic National Convention.
He said:
“If you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.”
My two cents: Please guys, look not at the colour of the skin but at the content of character (among so many other things – competence, effective promise-delivering strategies etc).
Check out some Snapshots of Michelle Obama’s Speech this Week.
He said that Americans are not foolish and are, therefore, not going to elect a black man as their president. “Etiquette alone dictates that we don’t allow a black man to move into a house which is itself called the White House,” He said, quite forcefully.
He distastefully went on to say: “If Barack Obama had a White wife, Americans would have tolerated him. But there is no way Americans will have a black woman masquerading in their White House!”
If this one American (white American, I presume) voices the prejudices of millions others out there, then Barack should brace himself for “an extremely tight and asphyxiating” fight for the White House.
But Barack sounded his answer to anyone who might try to use such tactics (such as using his “skin colour” to sway the voters) when he made his exemplary speech during the Democratic National Convention.
He said:
“If you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.”
My two cents: Please guys, look not at the colour of the skin but at the content of character (among so many other things – competence, effective promise-delivering strategies etc).
Check out some Snapshots of Michelle Obama’s Speech this Week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)