My Beauty Best Teacher

In a recent address Thabo Mbeki stated:

As with material goods, Africa is a primary producer of intellectual resources, and also a consumer of finished intellectual products, but makes little contribution to the value that is added in between. Much (perhaps most) African intellectual production occurs under northern (American and European) contracts. Consequently, Africa’s intellectual agenda is set outside the continent, with African scholars are co-opted as consultants and primary researchers, while the ablest of them are provided with careers in western universities, research institutes and policy institutions. The final product is then re-exported, its value having been multiplied many times over, to Africa for consumption by African people, governments and institutions.

More here

In Pambazuka:

What constitutes an intellectual in the South African context?’ asks Leslie Dikeni in this week’s Pambazuka News, ‘Who is an intellectual and who isn’t?’ In an extract from a new book of essays, ‘The Poverty of Ideas’, Dikeni separates the ‘real intellectuals’ from a new breed of ‘pseudo-intellectuals’ that have emerged in recent years: The ‘celebrity intellectual’, the ‘commercial intellectual’, the ‘policy analyst’ and the ‘new gender activist’...[continue reading]

KenyanPoet writes about the need to develop intellectual property protections.

The Maasai Market Empowerment Trust (MMET)was formed due to the need for an organization that understands the intricacies of Intellectual Property as well as appreciate the cultural, economic and historical value art has in a country and its people.
It will not only seek to protect such products like Lesso(fabric) or Akala(sandals), it will also ensure that every one of its members is educated on Intellectual Property, its impact and need to protect their inventions, this will be through workshops, seminars, campaigns and other awareness programs. The Trust also hopes to provide Micro-finance facilities to its members to further expand their businesses.

This weekend I got into a conversation with a friend of a friend about politics, and throughout the course of the conversation, I was bullied. This guy I was talking to responded to my attempts to engage in intelligent and thoughtful discussion about politics by attacking my person by calling me names, mocked my arguments by refusing to discuss them and instead making fun of them, tried to name drop and awe me with knowledge, and then when none of this got me to back down from my ideas, he actually physically tried to intimidate me. And it got me thinking about liberal teachers deal with bullies in schools, whether they be intellectual or physical.

Physical bullying still happens in schools, and liberal teachers have an interesting approach to it. After separating the students, a liberal teacher will take the student who is being bullied, and talk to them about why they are being bullied. They will attempt to make the student being bullied the bad guy, because they provoked the bully by talking back to them, they stood up to the bully instead of backing down, or they weren't sensitive enough to the bully's needs. According to liberal teachers, the bully is not a bad guy, but instead a victim of circumstances such as racial or economic, and acting out at the world, and thus you need to give in to his demands and not fight back. If the student feels too threatened, they should run for help, but should never rely on themselves to solve the situation.

Liberal teachers want to teach weakness and dependency. It makes them feel more powerful. In the same manner, liberal teachers are the most frequent intellectual bullies in the classroom. Liberal teachers badger their students during discussions, using superior knowledge and learning to awe students, and in order to get the right grades, they demand that student give in to their intellectual theories and demands. They don't want students to critically reason and explore complex ideas and thoughts- they demand that students give in to their demand, and their demand is that students agree with their liberal worldview. Yes, sometimes conservative teachers do this, but for every one of them that does, there are ten liberal teachers bullying their students intellectually.

My advice, to intellectual or physical bullying, is to fight back. Armed with logic and faith, I can do anything, including physically or intellectually whooping any liberal I want, and so can anyone being bullied.

Kofi Akosah-Sarpong writes:
Prof. Ali Mazrui’s address at the 30th anniversary celebration of the Dakar, Senegal-based CODESRIA on the theme “Intellectuals, Nationalism and the Pan-African Ideal” reveals the growing talks, African-wide, about the implications of the African culture and the continent’s development process. The central theme of Mazrui, currently Chancellor of Kenya’s Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, address is twofold. Why African intellectuals are mediocre and why this informs their inability to appropriate Pan-Africanism ideals into Africa’s development process. I would prefer why African elites have not being able to appropriate African cultural values into Africa’s development process as other elites in other parts of the world have done in their development process.

Using the East African region as a continental reference, Mazrui, known globally as one of Africa’s leading thinkers, reveals how undemocratic political climates undermined Africa’s intellectual growth, and how, by extension, this impacted on the continent’s development process. Unlike other ex-colonies, such as Japan, of which Mazrui used greatly as an example to show how African elites failed to match their Western education with their African values in both their intellectual development and the continent’s progress, the trouble with African elites and the continent’s development process is that, the elites play with ideas are not informed by Africa’s innate, indigenous values or ideas by rather the Western ideas that they have had in formal schools.

Mazrui himself shows this contradicting and confusing state of the African elites in this statement: “Uganda had for Head of Government a person who had changed his name because of admiration of the author of the great English poem, Paradise Lost. Obote became Milton Obote out of admiration of John Milton.” While in the spirit of universal intellectuality Obote could admire Milton, his admiration for a non-African poet and the fact that he is a Head of State, may have let Ugandan and African youth to admire more non-African elites than indigenous Ugandan and African elites. The central issue here is role model, values, and inspiration in the development process. In this sense, Obote did not deeply help the growth of African values and her progress. If Obote had done so, and by implications of Mazrui’s own account of the mediocrity of African intellectuals, and greatly touted a non-African value not because he was educated in Western paradigms but, like most African elites, because either he did not understand African values deeply enough or was mesmerized by Western values or did not respect African values or was confused about African values in relations to the continent’s progress.

Still, Mazrui’s argument that “The capacity to be curious and fascinated by ideas has to start early in the educational process. The spirit of intellectualism has to be nourished from primary school onwards, but it can die at the university level if mediocrity prevails,” reveals that the problem of Africa’s intellectual growth is not only at the university level but also at the primary school level; where the values, images and examples which are heavily European-centred are formed. So, if the African primary education system is heavily Western structured, it flows and grows to the high school level, and then later to the university level; thus sowing a culture of mediocrity, in terms of African values not predominantly dictating the intellectual life of the African child early enough. It is in this sense, that Ghana’s Dr. Y.K. Amoako, the former UN Economic Commission for Africa executive secretary, has observed that Africa is the only region in the world where foreign development paradigms dominate her development process. Not only does this indicate that Africa’s development process is not “culturally close” to Africans, but also a revelation that African elites are mediocre in both their intellectualizing and their direction of the continent’s progress.

This has made the African elite mediocre in their own innate environment and in their development process struggles. The mediocrity has come about because Africa’s elites do not think deeply from within Africa’s values first and the enabling aspects of their colonial legacies second in the continent’s development process. Mazrui himself testify of the Japanese elites doing so in their country’s development process. “In this connection it is worth bearing in mind important differences between the westernization of Africa and the modernization of Japan after the Meiji Restoration of 1868. Japan’s original modernization involved considerable selectivity on the part of the Japanese themselves (“Western Technique, Japanese Spirit”). The whole purpose of selective Japanese westernization was to protect Japan against the West, rather than merely to submit to western cultural attractions. The emphasis in Japan was therefore on the technical and technological techniques of the West, rather than on literary and verbal culture. The Japanese slogan of “western technique, Japanese spirit” at the time captured this ambition to borrow technology from the West while deliberately protecting a substantial part of Japanese culture. In a sense, Japan’s technological westernization was designed to reduce the danger of other forms of cultural dependency.”

This process should starts from childhood to adulthood based on a curriculum skillfully cast in African values first and any other borrowed ones second; more especially, in preparing African elites’ minds at an earlier stage: from primary and high schools levels. It is in this process that African elites, from their early formation to their university crystallization, will be “culturally close” to the African society, will be culturally close to the African’s progress in the continent’s development journey. By not being culturally close to the African society, African elites could not undertake the Japanese cultural selectivity in relations to their colonial legacies and the enabling aspects of the global culture, and, have, therefore, become both heavily technologically and culturally dependent upon the Western world despite their superb innate culture having huge technological and cultural values for progress. Writes Mazrui, “The nature of westernization in Africa has been very different. Far from emphasizing western productive technology and reducing western life-styles and verbal culture, Africa has reversed the Japanese order of emphasis. Among the factors which have facilitated this reversal has been the role of the African university as a vehicle of Western influence on African culture.”

The challenge for African elites today is how to overturn the contradiction they have caused in Africa’s progress by thinking first from within African values first, by matching African values with the enabling aspects of their colonial legacies and the global values, and by intellectually linking this “to the wider world of scholarship and science.”

Being President of the United States means being competent in international relations and being a good commander in chief. We have Congress to take care of our domestic issues- to pass laws, to push for legislation, to come up with rules and regulations on how we are governed- but Congress has few powers and abilities to act on the international stage, and so our Founders gave those powers to the President. One of the President's most important roles in our system is Commander-in-Chief of our military, and to assist him in this he appoints a very powerful advisor known as the Secretary of Defense.

The Secretary of Defense position has historically been considered one of the most powerful advisor positions in our government, and has been held by such illustrious people as George Marshall, Robert McNamara, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and when the position was called Secretary of War, was held by Henry Knox, James Monroe, John C. Calhoun, Lewis Cass, Jefferson Davis, Edwin Stanton, William Taft, and Henry Stimson. These are the names of future Presidents and the winners of major wars- this position has historically been a position that major talent is appointed to.

The election of President Barack Obama (Democrat) in 2008 changed all of this. First, Obama kept on Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense, and for all the good qualities of Mr. Gates, he is and always was simply a placeholder until someone better could be appointed. When Rumsfeld left, Bush needed to replace him, and felt that he needed a moderate and uncontroversial nominee in order to get confirmed by a hostile Democratic Congress that believed in the certainty of our losing the War on Terror (one of the many things in which Democrats have thought was truth and been proven wrong).

Following is an analysis of the candidates who are being considered to replace Gates as Secretary of Defense provided by RealClearPolitics. When you read this, try to pick up on the screaming incompetence that the Obama administration exhibits during this process:

Last August, rumors said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, Defense Undersecretary for Policy Michelle Flournoy, former Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre and Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed were among the possible nominees. To that list, sources add Virginia Sen. Jim Webb and Defense Undersecretary for Acquisition Ashton Carter.

Hillary Clinton would have nothing to gain, and much to lose, in taking the Pentagon job. At State, she has more freedom to claim headlines and grow her credentials than she would fighting the Pentagon budget battles. She won't do it. (my comment: best option won't take job because recognizes how sucky Obama is as President and is already scheming to replace him)

Chuck Hagel has been campaigning for the job for as long as most can remember. But Hagel is too much of a headline-seeker. Obama would have to worry as much about him in that job as, well, as he has to worry about what Joe Biden will say next about Afghanistan.(my comment: option two is a moron and can't be part of cabinet because Obama already has to many moron's in his cabinet)

Michelle Flournoy is a more likely choice, a notch ahead of John Hamre. Flournoy served as president of the leftish Center for a New American Security before taking her current post and after she served in various mid-level Pentagon policy posts. And because we've never had a female Defense Secretary, she'd be another Obama "first."(my comment: option 3 is being considered for an important position like this merely to make a political point and use external characteristics of people to score political points, and also headed a group that's projections have been wrong about pretty much everything)

Hamre, a defense intellectual, has for ten years been the president of the Center for Strategic and International Study, a nonpartisan think tank. Hamre is well respected on the Hill and could be the bureaucratic type Obama would want to lead the Pentagon for the next two years (my comment: option 4 doesn't sound too bad- this means Obama will only nominate him if his other unqualified and bad choices are rejected)

Jack Reed, a former Army Ranger, Harvard lawyer and liberal Democrat, would be a credible choice for Pentagon boss. But Reed's term doesn't expire until 2014 and there is no reason for him to end his senate term early. Reed's political ambitions would likely prevent him accepting the nomination (my comment: option 5 isn't real option- he won't leave his position)

Jim Webb, a decorated Vietnam Marine veteran, may have a tough race in 2012. Virginia went for Obama in 2008 but since elected a conservative governor and threw out a few liberal Democrats in 2010. But Webb is an odd guy, short-tempered and notoriously hard to deal with. Webb would be a bad fit in the Obama cabinet which is dominated by lawyers and academics (my comment: option 6 isn't a real option either)

Not the least likely - but certainly the least-known -- is Ashton Carter. Carter is a Ph.D. physicist who has taught at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and served in several lower defense posts, is the sort of intellectual Obama is attracted to. His current job, as acquisition chief, makes him knowledgeable of budget issues and his policy experience in assorted national security areas makes him a credible candidate (my comment: this sort of logic is the sort of logic that characterizes Obama's incompetent administration- low level intellectual whose degree is in an unrelated field will follow in the footsteps of the greats- that's the new normal of Obama for you)

So will it be Flournoy, Hamre or Carter? Or a surprise nominee from Obama's inner circle? Whomever it is will have the hardest job in Washington for the next two years.

Whomever it is, with Obama picking the person, we can be sure that it will be a poor pick who will demonstrate little competence and leadership in this important position, and America will be less safe because Obama is in office still making decisions like this.

Ebenezer Obadare writing in the New Humanist:

The situation in both Zimbabwe and Nigeria seems to validate the link between material privation and political suggestibility. Where people are poor and poorly educated (or not at all), they are more susceptible to political manipulation by demagogues who parrot easy explanations for complex and fundamentally rational economic problems. In most of Africa today, the insidious fiction that the “gay next door” bars the way to economic progress has been the cue for a massive pink-hunt.

On the influence of Pentecostals:

As a social phenomenon, one with key transnational connections, Pentecostal Christianity in Africa has carried a moralist and doggedly anti-intellectual banner. On the one hand, Pentecostalism manifests as a moralising force that narrates Africa’s economic and political crises as an inevitable outcome of public immorality (and what can be more immoral than two men or two women going at it in their bedroom?), a situation, it would seem, that can only be rectified by a collective return to the straight and narrow. As an anti-intellectual force, Pentecostalism in Africa is profoundly ahistorical in that it eschews human, especially political, agency in favor of pseudo-spiritual “explanations”.

More here

Yale Fellow Getachew Alemu perceives intellectual property rights and socioeconomic development as symbiotic in nature.He discusses the approach employed to build Ethiopia's IP framework.Watch him here

George Ayittey of the Free Africa Foundation writes:

1) Never Forget Your Roots

Africa's traditions, institutions, and customs are integral part of your heritage. This heritage includes participatory democracy based on consensus, free village markets, free enterprise and free trade. You cannot reject this heritage and remain African.

2) Seek Ye First the Economic Kingdom in the Private Sector

There is nothing wrong in wanting to be rich, but nobody became rich working for a wage/salary, unless he was prepared to steal or embezzle, like the African kleptocrats. But that does not pay in the long run. Earn your wealth in the private sector by actually producing something, even charcoal. If capital is a problem, do as the illiterates do by pooling savings as in the revolving credit schemes.

3) Privatize the Universities

Africa's universities should be privatized. They may be given a fixed annual government subvention and then allowed to raise their own revenue and manage their own affairs. This way, they can uphold academic freedom, which is currently not possible with the head of state, often a military imbecile, as the chancellor.

4) Demand and Defend Freedom of statement/Media

Recall that the first critical step in problem resolution is the exposure of the problem. Without freedom of statement this is nearly impossible... "African governments are responsible for the underdevelopment of African literature. Among the four main problems inhibiting the development of African literature is the expulsion of prominent African writers . . . the absence of African writers in international debates, absence of integrative policies and lack of publishing infrastructure" . All African intellectuals must demand the right to free speech and defend the rights of others for the freedom to speak, publish and write...

5) Practice Intellectual Solidarity

Respect and assist members of your own profession, regardless of differences of opinion. If one is under siege, all wherever they may be --- in or out of government, in or out of the country -- must go his or her aid. You may need group assistance yourself in the future. And extend this solidarity to other groups fighting the same cause as well...
6) Demand National Conferences

When a national crisis erupts, demand that a national dialogue or conference be set up to resolve it, as is done in African villages. The national conference must be sovereign and its decisions binding on all parties, including the government...

7) Disband the Military or Cut It in Half

No African intellectual with an iota of intelligence and a modicum of Pan-Africanist spirit would support, much less serve, a barbarous military regime. Ever! All those African countries that imploded were ruined by the military.

8) Pan-Africanism

Pan-Africanism, originating from the belief that African countries share common problems, common solutions, and common destinies will remain a dream unless you learn more about African countries other than your own.

9) Set Up a Rival AU
The time has come for the useless OAU(nowAU) to be disbanded or for a rival body, the Organization of Free African States to be set up. It should be made up of strictly democratic countries. OFAS can be set up under the aegis of President Nelson Mandela of South Africa.

10) Selectively Repudiate Foreign Debt

Insist that foreign aid be given only to democratic African countries. Time and again, foreign loans are taken by corrupt, illegitimate and repressive African regimes without the approval of the people.

Now that far-left liberals and the party that they have seized control over (Democrats) have lost the debate on a whole range of issues- spending, taxes, tax cuts, national defense, morality, family values, the economy, etc- they are starting to play small ball and attack on smaller issues, issues that they feel they can gain political traction on and distract voters from the reality of the situation. They're hoping that by going after little issues they can stop people from voting them out of office because their policies- Democrats have controlled our legislative branch since 2007 and the executive branch since 2009 and it is now 2011- have set in place a new normal of high taxes, high regulation, low job growth, low economic economic growth, bitter partisan politics, decreased national security, and loss of face around the world.

One of these small ball little issues that the Democrats are hoping to gain traction on is making Clarence Thomas into a bad guy. They're hoping that if they can make an influential intellectual and moral giant of the opposition into a 'bad guy', it will help them, since liberals and their Democratic allies build only by tearing down (strip rich people of money to build up the poor, make other nations feel better by lessening our power, giving healthcare to others by taking money from others, etc).

One influential blog on the left is a blog called The Blue Voice, and it is a good representation on the kind of stupidity and incivility that increasingly characterizes the left, liberal, and Democratic side of our nation- a side which does not represent the majority or even a large portion of voters views in our nation. Reputably, President Barack Obama reads this blog for ideas and advice on how to run our nation- as if we needed any more evidence of his unfitness for office. You see, The Blue Voice is of such low intellectual and moral value that few should willingly read it.

From a post called Why don't the Democrats demand impeachment hearings on Justice Clarence Thomas?:

Rightwing Republican Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia have both been involved in partisan activities of a kind that, to put it mildly, is highly questionable for a Justice of the highest court in the US. Both Thomas and Scalia voted for the majority decisions in Bush v. Gore (2000) and Citizen's United (2010), two of the worst decisions in being destructive to democratic government that the Supreme Court has ever made.

The Democrats no longer have a majority in the House, which would have to make an impeachment vote. But the Dems can certainly use a push for impeachment hearings against Thomas and/or Scalia to raise a stick about the crass partisanship of those Republican Justices.

Let's pause here and see what we see. As evidence for Thomas and Scalia's 'highly questionable' partisan activities, they voted in favor of two court cases the left does not like. Quick history recap.

Bush v Gore: the Court ruled that the Florida Supreme Court's method for recounting ballots was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that no alternative method could be established within the time limits set by the State of Florida. Three concurring justices also went father and asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature. The decision allowed Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris's previous certification of George W. Bush as the winner of Florida's electoral votes to stand. The left does not like this decision because they don't like equal protection, the Constitution, the law, democracy, and George Bush.

Citizens United v Federal Election Commission: The Supreme Court ruled that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts (such as a non-profit group airing a film critical of those who it opposes) cannot be limited under the First Amendment. This is not liked by the left (and Obama, who is a tool of the left), because they want to be able to silence speech of those who they disagree with (except terrorists, who they feel have the right to say whatever they want). Starting in 2002, for-profit and not-for-profit corporations and unions were not allowed to broadcast “electioneering communications,” but now these groups can once again fully engage in the political process and contribute their voice to the political debate.

The Blue Voice calls these two decisions "the worst decisions in being destructive to democratic government that the Supreme Court has ever made"- one decision which upheld the 14th amendment and the constitution and the other which upheld the 1st amendment. In The Blue Voice's world (and Obama's world, if you give him another term and elect Democrats at any level to help him), counties should be able to selectively recount ballots using whatever system of counting they want until they get the winner they want and corporations and unions should not be allowed to broadcast their views on candidates even if these corporations and businesses feel that these politicians views will be damaging or destructive to them. I would contend that the views supported and argued by The Blue Voice are a lot more destructive to a democratic government, unless The Blue Voice made a typo and meant to write "Democratic government", in which case they are right, those two decisions did damage a Democratic government in favor of supporting a democratic government.

The Blue Voice feels that voting for two court cases that the majority passed are on the level of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' enough to initiate impeachment cases against these two justices, and that now that they don't really have to do it, now is the perfect time. When the Democrats actually ran the House and had to be on record, they would never have considered even thinking the silly thoughts The Blue Dog advocates, but now that they have been thrown out of power by voters, they are encouraged to go off the deep end and think all sort of silly thoughts and fantasies. It is surprising to me that voters would support that kind of 'work' by returning them to power in 2012 or by voting for politicians that survived the beat-down of 2010 (like Gary Peters).

The Blue Voice pretends that it is the right that is being divisive and uncivil and partisan, but if you read blog posts like this one, you'll walk away with a different impression entirely. The Blue Voice speaks with stupidity and incivility, and if this is the kind of thoughts and ideas and discussion that the liberal left that controls the Democratic party is engaged in, it is even more evidence that voters should not vote Democrat at any level in 2012.

UPDATE: Looks like I was in on the game plan earlier than most- there are major stories now on this larger attack on conservative justices by liberals- memeorandum has a link here and yahoo has a link here.

Mark Buchanan writes:

If more scientists started pushing for a return to independent, curiosity-driven science, then this might also encourage the big funding agencies and the other new sources of private funds such as the Perimeter Institute or the Howard Hughes and Gates Foundations. Indeed, Weinstein suggests, these new structures may have similarities with recent developments in financial engineering with the new structures emerging as “intellectual hedge funds” in response to perceived inefficiencies of more traditional agents, which play the role of more risk-averse mutual funds.

More here(PDF)

Hope Shand writing in Pambazuka:

Under the guise of developing ‘climate-ready’ crops, the world’s largest seed and agrochemical corporations are pressuring governments to allow what could become the broadest and most dangerous patent claims in intellectual property history. A new report by ETC Group[1] reveals a dramatic upsurge in the number of patent claims on ‘climate-ready’ genes, plants and technologies that will supposedly allow biotech crops to tolerate drought and other environmental stresses (i.e. abiotic stresses) associated with climate change. The patent grab threatens to put a monopoly choke-hold on the world’s biomass and our future food supply, warns ETC Group.

More here

Altitude Book Club (ABC)"...is a community of professionals from all walks of life committed, as book lover and book collectors, to the reading and intellectual conversation of great books in order to foster mutual affection/interaction among its members and other stakeholders, and in the process impact the society by putting at its “doorpost” the innovative ideas obtained from the books we have read...Altitude Book Club operates on these three levels: Intellectual, Social & Communal..."
Via NaijaBlog

James Shikwati writes about Intellectual Property Rights "...The West have always sought systematic knowledge that can be replicated and refer to that knowledge as 'science'. It is for this reason that they have moved from focusing on natural resources such as 'land' to resources such as transistors, radios, fiber optic cables from sand. Most third world countries on the other hand have focused only on the 'visible wealth' and 'tribal organization'. This structure instead of fostering wealth, promotes war over resources.The list of inventions and innovations rarely indicates participation from Africa, falsely creating an impression that Africans are not creative and innovative. On the contrary however, long before the colonialist came to Africa, the African people had started ventures in medicine, iron smelting, arts, music, house building, and bead making and curving. The power of innovation was also exhibited in the way they preserved fire for later use, stored foodstuffs and the very fact that they could light a fire by rubbing two sticks together.
However the lack of systematic recording and beyond a collective level of property right recognition(PDF), robbed many innovators in Africa the ability to have their ideas improved upon and made economically viable. More so, the lack of a property rights regime that could measure to the countries that later colonized Africa made it easier for both physical and intellectual property to be seized by the occupying powers..."

Think about this when faced with a political question:

You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order - or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, 'The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.'

The above quotation came from Ronald Reagan's speech, "A Time For Choosing," which he delivered in October of 1964. This words are still relevant today. Do the policies that you promote take us towards the ant heap of totalitarianism, or advance us up the ladder of liberty? Does withdrawal from Iraq increase individual freedom and order? Does a national healthcare system move us up or down? Is giving federal money for stem-cell research, fuel efficient cars, and windfarms expanding my freedom, or restricting my choices?

Answering these questions in a manner consistent to Reagan's rhetoric about liberty and freedom is the real change that we need in our country.

UPDATE: As I watch the speech, this line blew me away:

There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We're at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it's been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

Today, the soldiers of our nation are fighting a valiant and noble war to bring peace and freedom to new people, and thereby make America more free and safe. And yet, there are those among us who want us to lose that war, to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. I agree- do we still know the gift that was given to us by our Founding Fathers?

UPDATE 2: You have to watch this speech. I'm rather young- I've never seen it. Link to it above. Check out this line:

This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

During this last election, it was about a little intellectual elite in Washington telling you how to live your life. Remember that exchange with Joe the Plumber and Barack Obama? In it, he said that he thinks it is best if he takes some of your money and redistributes it to others- and those who voted for him admit that he does know better than them how to run their lives. Have we indeed lost our capacity for self-government, as our tradition and schools fail to educate us? Have we abandoned the American Revolution, and the First Principles on which it was based? Reagan continued:

(Our Founding Fathers) knew that governments doesn't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.

Force and coercion- tyranny and oppression. Not to be Mr. Doom and Gloom, but that is what is going to follow this Democratic victory. Reagan understood the nature of the beast. Look at this line:

Well what of this man (Barry Goldwater) that they (the liberals) would destroy -- and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear?

Think about what liberals did to Sarah Palin. They attempted to personally destroy her, so that in doing so, they would destroy everything that she represented- in personally attacking her, their goal was to attack the freedoms and liberties on which our nation was based.

Here is the ending:

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness. We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny. Thank you very much.

The Colonialism-Imperialism Paradigm Is Kaput
George B. N. Ayittey, Ph.D.
June 26, 2005.

Africas paradox is galling: immense mineral wealth yet inexorably mired in steaming squalor, misery, deprivation, and chaos. A few countries have sprinted ahead but Africas overall economic performance remains abysmal, lagging behind those of other regions in the Third World. The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) has warned that at the prevailing rates black Africa would take another 150 years to reach some of the development targets agreed by UN members for 2015. (Financial Times, July 9, 2003; p.1). Who ruined Africa?

The causes of Africas lack of development have always evoked heated emotional debates. On one hand are those who portray Africa as a victim of powerful external forces and conspiracies a group that may be described as externalists.On the other are those who believe that the causes of Africa's crisis lie mostly within African in the nature of government (governance) or how Africa runs its own affairs. This group may be described as the internalists.

The Externalists

The externalists believe that Africa's woes are due to external factors such as the lingering effects of Western colonialism and imperialism, the pernicious effects of the slave trade, racist conspiracy plots, exploitation by avaricious multinational corporations, an unjust international economic system, inadequate flows of foreign aid, the neo-liberal policies of the World Bank, IMF, and deteriorating terms of trade. Disciples of the externalist creed include most African leaders, scholars, and intellectual radicals. For decades, the externalist position held sway, attributing the causes of almost every African problem to such external factors.

In his book, The Africans, African scholar and historian Professor Ali Mazrui, examining Africas crises, attributed most of Africas woes to Western colonialism and imperialism. "The West harmed Africa's indigenous technological development in a number of ways" (164). Africa's collapsing infrastructure (roads, railways, and utilities) is due to the "shallowness of Western institutions," "the lopsided nature of colonial acculturation" and "the moral contradictions of Western political tutelage" (202). In fact, "the political decay is partly a consequence of colonial institutions without cultural roots in Africa" (199). Therefore, self congratulatory western assertions of contributing to Africa's modernization are shallow: "The West has contributed far
less to Africa than Africa has contributed to the industrial civilization of the West" (164). Decay in law enforcement and mismanagement of funds can be traced to Western colonialism too. "The
pervasive atmosphere in much of the land is one of rust and dust, stagnation and decay, especially within those institutions which were originally bequeathed by the West signal the slow death of an alien civilization" (204) and Africa's rebellion "against westernization
masquerading as modernity" (211). Western institutions are doomed "to grind to a standstill in Africa" or decay. "Where Islam is already established, the decay of western civilization is good for Islam since it helps to neutralize a major threat" (19).

Many African leaders also subscribed to and espoused similar views ascribing the causes of Africa's crises to external factors. In fact, since independence in the sixties, almost every African malaise was alleged to have been caused by the operation or conspiracy of extrinsic agents. This externalist doctrine totally absolved the leadership of any responsibility for the mess in Africa. The leadership was above reproach and could never be faulted. President Mobutu even blamed
corruption on European colonialism. Asked who introduced corruption into Zaire, he retorted: "European businessmen were the ones who said, 'I sell you this thing for $1,000, but $200 will be for your (Swiss bank) account'" (New African, July, 1988, 25).

In his address to the third Congress of the Democratic Union of Malian People recently, President Moussa Traore observed that, The world economy is passing through a period characterized by monetary disorder and slow trade exchanges. The worsening crisis is affecting all countries, particularly developing countries. Due to the difficult situation, which is compounded by the serious drought, socio economic life has been affected by serious imbalances
that have jeopardized our country's development growth. Debt servicing, characterized mainly by state to state debts are a heavy burden on the state budget. The drop in the price of cotton which accounts for much of the country's foreign earnings, has led to a great reduction in export
earnings" (West Africa, 16 May 1988, 876).

President Danial arap Moi accused the IMF and other development partners of denying Kenya development funds, thus triggering mass poverty (The Washington Times, June 3, 1999; p.A12). According to the Chairman of Ghanas ruling NDC, Issifu Ali, whatever economic crisis the nation was going through had been caused by external factors. He said the NDC has since 1982 adopted pragmatic policies for the progress of Ghana, adding that the macro-economic environment of 1999 has been undermined by global economic developments" (The Independent, Nov 18, 1999; p.3). Said the Zimbabwe Independent (April 27, 1999), Mugabe
rejects the criticism of those who blame the government for the economic crisis. It is, he says, the fault of greedy Western powers, the IMF, the Asian financial crisis and the drought (p. 25).

Naturally, African leaders would deny any responsibility and blame everybody else except themselves for the mess in Africa. The New Economic Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) echoes this orthodoxy when it claims that Africas impoverishment has been accentuated by the legacy of colonialism and other historical legacies, such as the Cold War and the unjust international economic system. Colonialism subverted the "traditional structures, institutions and values," creating an economy "subservient to the economic and political
needs of the imperial powers" (para 21). Colonialism, according to NEPAD, retarded the development of an entrepreneurial and middle class with managerial capability. At independence, Africa inherited a "weak capitalist class," which explains the "weak accumulation process, weak states and dysfunctional economies." (para 22). More recent reasons for Africa's dire condition include "its continued marginalization from globalization process." (para 2). NEPAD seeks $64 billion in investments from the West.

Frankly, this colonialism-imperialism card has been so overplayed that it has lost its relevance and credence. Even Africas children dont buy it. Chernoh Bah, president of the Children's Forum asserted that Africa's socio economic problems are a direct repercussion of incompetent and corrupt political leaders who usurped political office via the gun. "Some blame colonialism for Africa' plight while others blame the continent's harsh climatic conditions. I think the reason is the kind of political systems we have had over the past decades, he said. (Standard Times [Freetown], April 2, 2003; web posted). At the United Nations Children's Summit held in May 2002 in New York, youngsters from Africa ripped into their leaders for failing to improve
their education and health. "You get loans that will be paid in 20 to 30 years and we have nothing to pay them with, because when you get the money, you embezzle it, you eat it, said 12-year-old Joseph Tamale from Uganda (BBC News, May 10, 2002).

The Internalists

Internalists are the new and angry generation of Africans, who are fed up with African leaders who refuse to take responsibility for their own failures and, instead use colonialism and other external factors as convenient alibis to conceal their own incompetence and mismanagement.
Internalists believe that, while external factors have played a role, internal factors have been far more significant in causing Africas crisis. This school of thought maintains that while it is true Western colonialism and imperialism did harm Africa and continues to do so, Africa's condition has been made immeasurably worse by such internal factors as misguided leadership, misgovernance, systemic corruption, capital flight, economic mismanagement, declining investment, collapsed infrastructure, decayed institutions, senseless civil wars, political
tyranny, flagrant violations of human rights, and military vandalism. In fact, one can identify a whole lot of them but these will suffice. U.N. Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, himself an African, lashed out at African leaders at the Organization of African Unity (OAU) Summit in Lome in July 2000. He pointedly told them that they are to blame for most of the continent's problems. Instead of being exploited for the benefit of the people, Africas mineral resources have been so
mismanaged and plundered that they are now the source of our misery (Daily Graphic, July 12, 2000; p.5). Earlier in the year at a press conference in London in April, 2000, Kofi Annan, lambasted African leaders who he says have subverted democracy and lined their pockets
with public funds, although he stopped short of naming names (The African-American Observer, April 25 May 1, 2000; p.10). During a brief stop-over in Accra, he disclosed in a Joy FM radio station interview that "Africa is the region giving him the biggest headache as the
Security Council spends 60 to 70% of its time on Africa. He admitted sadly that the conflicts on the continent embarrasses and pains him as an African" (The Guide, July 18-24, 2000; p.8).

Ordinary people are speaking out too. Said Akobeng Eric, a Ghanaian, in a letter to the Free Press (29 March - 11 April 1996): "A big obstacle to economic growth in Africa is the tendency to put all blame, failures and shortcomings on outside forces. Progress might have been achieved if we had always tried first to remove the mote in our own eyes" (2). Angry
at deteriorating economic conditions in Ghana, thousands of Ghanaians marched through the streets of the capital city, Accra, the economic crisis is due to external forces and therefore, beyond his control, then he should step aside and allow a competent person who can
manage the crisis to take over," Atta Frimpong demanded (The Ghanaian Chronicle, Nov 29, 1999; p.1). Appiah Dankwah, another protestor blamed the NDC government for mismanaging the resources of the nation.

By the 1990s, African governments had completely lost touch with their people; in fact, they were at war with their people. Citing "the credibility gap between the people and the leadership built up through years of mismanagement," Mr. Mohammed Boudiaf, the head of Algeria's
High Executive Council (HEC), lamented: "A large segment of the population has, I am afraid, lost confidence in the capacity of the leadership to provide jobs, housing, health care and its ability to combat corruption" (Financial Times, June 17, 1992; p. 4). Indeed, said Simon Agbo, a farmer in Ogbadibo, south of Makurdi, Benue state capital in Nigeria: "I heard we have a new government. It makes no difference to me. Here we have no light ( electricity), we have no water. There is no road. We have no school. The government does nothing for us (The
Washington Times, Oct 21, 1999; p.A19).

Rafael Marques, a journalist, jailed and convicted of defamation for a 1999 article in which he characterized President Jose Eduardo dos Santos of Angola as a dictator, wrote: "The government has created a stateless state here in Angola. Each citizen is responsible for his own health and welfare while the government is accountable to no one. The MPLA and
UNITA are like two gangs and the people of Angola are innocent bystanders caught in the middle of a drive-by shooting" (The Washington Post, Sept 18, 2000; p.A1).

As a result of the failure to provide the basic necessities of life, the state and those in power have increasingly alienated themselves from those they rule and from whom they claim to derive their legitimacy. The growing gap between the leaders and the people has made the leaders increasingly insecure, sensitive, repressive and less responsive to the wishes of society. The mass of the people in turn regard the state and its organs with fear, suspicion and cynicism because as far as they are concerned, they are no longer legitimate or relevant in their lives. The government does nothing for them. Insecure African despots spend inordinate amounts on the military and security forces, subverting other state institutions squelch dissent, prop them up in power, and serve their parochial interests. The masses on the other hand, sensing their
inability to meaningfully influence the policies of the state and the behaviors of those in positions of power, develop apathy and withdraw from participation in the political process for safety reasons.

Government, as an institution that cares about its people and attends to their needs, has ceased to exist in many African countries. What exists is a vampire state, where the government has been hijacked by a phalanx of unrepentant bandits and crooks, who use the machinery of the
state to enrich themselves, their cronies and tribesmen, while excluding everyone else (the politics of exclusion). The richest persons in Africa are heads of state and ministers. Quite often, the chief bandit is the head of state himself.

At an African civic groups meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Nigeria's President, Olusegun Obasanjo, claimed that corrupt African leaders have stolen at least $140 billion (95 billion) from their people in the decades since independence (The London Independent, June 14, 2002. Web
posted at www.independent.co.uk). In August 2004, an African Union report claimed that Africa loses an estimated $148 billion annually to corrupt practices, a figure which represents 25 percent of the continent's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). But these are gross underestimates. According to one UN estimate, $200 billion or 90 percent of the sub-Saharan part of the continent's gross domestic product was shipped to foreign banks in 1991 alone (The New York Times, Feb 4, 1996; p.4). Nigeria's past rulers stole or misused 220 billion ($396 billion) -- that is as much as all the western aid given to Africa in almost four decades. The looting of Africa's most populous country amounted to a sum equivalent to 300 years of British aid for the
continent (The London Telegraph, June 25, 2005; web posted). If this sum had been divided equally among Nigerias 120 million people, its income per capita would be at least $3,000, instead of the miserable $265, which is about the same as it was when it gained its independence in 1960. Between 1970 and 2004, more than $400 billion in oil money
flowed into Nigerian governments coffers. What happened to the oil money?

Eventually the vampire state metastasizes into what Africans call a coconut republic and implodes when politically-excluded groups rise up in rebellion: Somalia (1993), Rwanda (1994), Burundi (1995), Zaire (1996), Sierra Leone (1998), Liberia (1999), Ivory Coast (2000), and
Togo (2005). Only reform intellectual, economic, political and institutional will save Africa but the leadership is not interested. Period.

Ask these leaders to develop their countries and they will develop their pockets. Ask them to seek foreign investment and they will seek a foreign country to invest their booty. Ask them to cut bloated state bureaucracies or government spending and they will set up a Ministry of
Less Government Spending. Ask them to establish better systems of governance and they will set up a Ministry of Good Governance (Tanzania). Ask them to curb corruption and they will set up an Anti-Corruption Commission with no teeth and then sack the Commissioner if he gets too close to the fat cats (Kenya). Ask them to establish democracy and they will empanel a coterie of fawning sycophants to write the electoral rules, hold fraudulent elections with opposition leaders either disqualified or in jail, and return themselves to power (Ivory Coast, Rwanda). Ask them to reduce state hegemony in the economy and place more reliance on the private sector and they will create a Ministry of Private Enterprise (Ghana). Ask them to privatize inefficient state-owned enterprises and they will sell them off at fire-sale prices to their cronies. In 1992, in accordance with World Bank loan conditionalities, the Government of Uganda began a
privatization effort to sell-off 142 of its state-owned enterprises. However, in 1998, the process was halted twice by Ugandas own parliament because, according to the chair of a parliamentary select committee, Tom Omongole, it had been derailed by corruption, implicating three senior ministers who had "political responsibility" (The East African, June 14, 1999). The sale of these 142 enterprises was initially projected to generate 900 billion Ugandan shillings or $500
million. However, by the autumn of 1999 the revenue balance was only 3.7 billion Ushs.

Now, their recalcitrance has transmogrified into extortion. Ask them to move a foot and they will demand foreign aid in order to do so. In 2003, some 30,000 ghost names were discovered on the payroll of the Ministry of Education, costing the government $1.2 million a month in salaries heisted by living workers. When Ghana demanded foreign aid to purge these ghost names, Japan ponied up $5 million.

The reform process has stalled through vexatious chicanery, strong-arm tactics, deception, and vaunted acrobatics. Only 16 out of the 54 African countries are democratic and fewer than 8 African countries can be described as economic success stories. Intellectual freedom remains
in the Stalinist era: only 8 African countries have a free and independent media. But without genuine reform, more African countries will implode -- Chad, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Togo and Zimbabwe are already teetering on the brink

The slave trade, Western colonialism, imperialism and external factors have nothing to do with the naked plunder and wrong choices made by bad African leaders. The World Bank has nothing to do with monumental leadership failure in Africa. The IMF, which most African leaders relish
vilifying, has nothing to do with petrol (gasoline) shortages in Nigeria. Nor do Western agricultural subsidies have anything to do with why African governments cant supply reliable electricity and safe drinking water to their people. The slave trade has nothing to do with
Nigeria turning itself into the scam capital of the world.

The Flaws in the Externalist Position

The issue of Western culpability or complicity in causing Africas woes evokes such intense emotionalism that it often clouds rational analysis of our problems in Africa. Let us strip the issue of its emotionalism and examine it rationally.

Historical Wrongs Committed by the West

The Slave Trade/Colonialism

Everyone agrees that the slave trade was at once a brutally inhumane treatment that can ever be meted out to a people. The horrors of capture, the trans-shipment, the loss of millions of able-bodied men, the atrocities that were committed by European slave traders, etc. are all documented. We all agree to the humiliating experience of colonial subjugation. The discrimination against African natives, the exploitation of Africa's mineral wealth and artifacts, etc. -- we also agree on that.

Remedies

We may seek compensation (reparations) for the harm that slavery did to us. We may seek the return of the stolen booty. Ethiopia has just received its ancient obelisk, stolen by the Italian colonialists. But even here, African leaders have debauched the issue.

Back in August 1999, representatives of African governments met in Accra and issued a declaration: "Africa is demanding $777 trillion from Western Europe and the Americas in reparation for enslaving Africans while colonizing the continent" (Pan African News Agency, August 18, 1999). It added that the money would be demanded from ''all those nations of Western Europe and the Americas and institutions, who participated and benefited from the slave trade and colonialism''. Dr. Hamet Maulana and Debra Kofie, co-chairpersons of the commission, urged that worldwide monitoring and networking systems be instituted to ensure
that reparation and repatriation will be achieved by 2004. Problem is, U.S. GNP is only $12 trillion and amount asked- $777 trillion- exceeds the combined sum of the GNPs of the entire Western world! According to the British governments Office of National Statistics, The United
Kingdom -- that is England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland -- is officially valued at $8.8 trillion, a sum that includes all of its property and buildings, machinery, roads, bridges, planes, trains and automobiles. It also includes all the money deposited in its banks and other financial institutions. Plus everything on the shelves at Harrods (The New York Times, Jan 1, 2004; p.A4). So how do African leaders hope to collect $777 trillion?

We may argue all we want about the size of reparations but these historical wrongs cannot repeat, cannot -- be used to justify the cruel atrocities and grotesque misdeeds African leaders commit against their own people. Winning independence for their respective countries gives no African leader -- none of them -- the license to do what they want with their people and countries.

European slave traders or colonialists did not tell President Mugabe to raze down shanty-towns, destroying the propertied of hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans and rendering more than 1.5 million HOMELESS. American imperialists did not tell President Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia
to order his security forces to open fire on student demonstrators, killing more than 40 of them on June 15, 2005. British racists did not tell President Isaiah Afwerki of Eritrea to shut down all the private newspapers in Eritrea and jail all their editors and journalists.

These leaders must be held ACCOUNTABLE for their actions. Historical wrongs by the West do not factor in here because they are a separate issue and CANNOT be used to excuse wrongful actions taken by African leaders TODAY.

Colonial Legacies

It is also agreed that the colonial legacies bequeathed to Africa were pitiful. What the Portuguese left behind in Guinea-Bissau, after 200 years of colonial rule, was a small brewery for their local servicemen. There was no social development; industry was not encouraged. African colonies were to serve as sources of raw material and cheap labor for the industrial machines of Metropolitan Europe. The colonial economies were based on export mono-culture: the export of one or two cash crops.

Colonial education was geared toward training male clerks for the colonial administration. The Belgians and Portuguese never encouraged university education as that would teach African natives of their political rights. When Tanzania gained its independence in 1964, it had only 4 university graduates.

Infrastructure was Spartan. Few roads and railways were built. Even where built in West Africa, they exhibited a dendritic pattern: Straight from the coast to the hinterland to evacuate some mineral or cash crop.

All this is true but heres the problem: After independence, we, African elites, did not maintain, let alone keep the little infrastructure we inherited from the colonialists. In fact, we destroyed them! Infrastructure crumbled in the post colonial period. The few universities we got in Ghana and Nigeria decayed. In Uganda, Makerere University used to be called the Harvard of Africa in the 1950s. By 1980, it was a shambles. In Zaire, the Belgian colonialists put down only 2,000 miles of paved road appalling for that huge country the size of Texas. By 1990, only 200 miles were usable. So who do you blame: the Belgian colonialists for not laying down enough roads OR Mobutu for failing to maintain the little that Zaire got? Later, we learned that Mobutu allowed the roads and infrastructure to crumble in Zaire because it made it difficult for the opposition to organize against him!
(contd)

African Axis is"...committed to mobilizing and harnessing the intellectual and financial resources of professionals of the African diaspora to contribute to public debate and policy making on Africa at the European level and to the development of the African continent...."