ONE OF MY BIGGEST COMPLAINTS ABOUT NIGERIA, IS THAT EVERYONE SEEMS TO KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEMS ARE, BUT CAN'T OFFER CONCRETE ANSWERS. SO IN RESPONSE TO MY RECENT RANT ABOUT THISDAY NEWSPAPER INVITING FORMER BRITISH PRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR AND FORMER US. SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEZZA RICE, HERE IS HOW I THINK WE SHOULD CELEBRATE/USHER IN OUR 50TH INDEPENDENCE ANNIVERSARY. WE ALL KNOW THERE ISN'T MUCH TO CELEBRATE, BUT THERE'S MUCH TO DEBATE, LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK:
As Nigeria enters its 50th year, it would seem only evident to usher it in and celebrate it with a series of reflectures (reflection lectures) called The Reflectures: Nigeria at 50, a 4 part round table on keys issues concerning the state of the nation. The reflectures shall deal with the following issues:
• Education
• Health & Environment
• Vision 20: 2020, M.D.Gs, IMF and Foreign Policies
• Unemployment
Each lecture shall be set three months apart and preferably televised on TV. The events shall be opened to the public and will include special invited guests to discuss each season’s topic.
SPECIAL ASISTANCE:
To get the most out of our lecture series, the co-operation of the Ministry of Information and Communication shall be vital.
VENUE:
The choice of venue needs to be able to carry an audience as well as a television crew if possible.
BACKGROUND:
The background of each event is important and should include the words “NIGERIA AT 50” clearly visible on wallpaper and perhaps the main topic being discussed.
ATTENDANCE:
Attendance should be open to the public.
PROMOTION:
The promotion of each lecture shall include the use of the social Internet groups such as facebook to create awareness by getting the public to participate and to send in questions they’d like to have answered.
POSSIBLE ISSUES TO DISCUSS AT EACH REFLECTURE
EDUCATION:
• Achieving the M.D.G on education
• Why there’s no ministry of higher education and if they should be
• ASUU strikes
• How will the Abdulmuttalab terror incident affect Nigerian students wishing to study abroad, especially those with Arabic names and/or Islamic backgrounds?
• Adult illiteracy
• The future of Nigerian education
POSSIBLE GUESTS:
• Special assistant to the president on the M.D.G- Hajiya Amina Az- Zabur
• Minister of Education- Dr. Sam Egwe
• Minister of State for Education- Hajiya Aishatu Jibril Dukku
• President of ASUU
• President Abuja Writers Forum- Dr. Emmanuel Shehu
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT:
• General public sanitation
• Malaria and H.I.V/AIDS awareness
• The treatment of gunshot wound victims
• Climate Change
POSSIBLE GUESTS:
• Minister of health
• D.G NAFDAC
• Minister of Environment
• Minister of Police Affairs
• Minister of the F.C.T- Senator Adamu Aliero
• Interested N.G.Os
VISION 20: 2020, M.D.G, I.M.F AND NIGERIA’S FOREIGN CONUNDRUM:
• How feasible is Vision 20: 2020?
• How far with the M.D.G?
• How does Vision 20: 2020 and M.D.G relate to the president’s 7 point agenda?
• Should Nigeria be borrowing from the I.M.F?
• Nigeria’s placing on the U.S terror list.
POSSIBLE GUESTS:
• Minister of Finance- Mallam Mukthar
• Minister of National Planning- Dr. Shamsudeen Usman
• The Vision 20: 2020 committee
• Special Assistant to the President on the M.D.G- Hajiya Amina Az-Zabur
• The President’s special assistance on the 7 Point Agenda
• Head of I.M.F in Nigeria
UNEMPLOYMENT
• How to solve the crisis of unemployment
• The impact, if any, of N.Y.S.C on employment
POSSIBLE GUESTS:
• Minister of Labour
• D.G N.Y.S.C
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
WE DON'T WANT WAR CRIMINALS CELEBRATING OUR INDEPENDENCE!
THISDAY newspaper has announced it will be inviting former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and former U.S secretary of state Condoleezza Rice to celebrate Nigeria’s 50th independence anniversary, referring to them as “rightly honourable” and “honourable” respectively. The event will be the 15th annual THISDAY awards taking place on February 21st, 2010, which would be broadcast live on TV and on the web. As a side note, for those of you not Nigerian, Nigeria’s independence actually takes place on October 1st, but this is somewhat of a pre-celebration tagged by THISDAY as “Nigeria at 50”.
I don’t think I need to tell you who these two individuals are or even yet what crimes they have committed against humanity. If this is how THISDAY CEO, Ndukka wishes to spend his company’s money in celebrating our independence, he might as well have invited African war criminals like Charles Taylor instead of spending money on these two. Or why not invite controversial African leaders like Robert Mugabe or Omar Al-Bashir or the ones we even have at home, at least they’re Nigerians. Why reach out to the West? Why pay for their accommodation? What have they done for us? Why is Condoleezza planning to visit a country that has been put on her nation’s terror list? I guess terrorist know each other. That might explain why Blair is coming too. It all makes sense now.
It’s a good thing THISDAY has so far made no mention of where the awards shall take place, perhaps in fear of rightly angered Nigerians bum-rushing the event. We are terrorists after all, isn’t that what we’ve been labeled recently? Even worse than the invitation of the disastrous two, is the omission of General Murtala Mohammed in the “Visionary Leaders and Fighters” section of THISDAY’S names of Nigerians to be awarded. How do Ibrahim Babangida, Muhammadu Buhari, Yakubu Gowon and Olusegun Obasanjo get honoured, while a man who was killed for his country is being left out? These four are still alive more or less playing politics with no concrete results. What is wrong with Ndukka’s THSIDAY? PLEASE!
Feel free to join the group at facebook http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=448874095202
I don’t think I need to tell you who these two individuals are or even yet what crimes they have committed against humanity. If this is how THISDAY CEO, Ndukka wishes to spend his company’s money in celebrating our independence, he might as well have invited African war criminals like Charles Taylor instead of spending money on these two. Or why not invite controversial African leaders like Robert Mugabe or Omar Al-Bashir or the ones we even have at home, at least they’re Nigerians. Why reach out to the West? Why pay for their accommodation? What have they done for us? Why is Condoleezza planning to visit a country that has been put on her nation’s terror list? I guess terrorist know each other. That might explain why Blair is coming too. It all makes sense now.
It’s a good thing THISDAY has so far made no mention of where the awards shall take place, perhaps in fear of rightly angered Nigerians bum-rushing the event. We are terrorists after all, isn’t that what we’ve been labeled recently? Even worse than the invitation of the disastrous two, is the omission of General Murtala Mohammed in the “Visionary Leaders and Fighters” section of THISDAY’S names of Nigerians to be awarded. How do Ibrahim Babangida, Muhammadu Buhari, Yakubu Gowon and Olusegun Obasanjo get honoured, while a man who was killed for his country is being left out? These four are still alive more or less playing politics with no concrete results. What is wrong with Ndukka’s THSIDAY? PLEASE!
Feel free to join the group at facebook http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=448874095202
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
IN DEFENSE OF AVATAR
The recent Golden Globe winner for best drama, Avatar has been under some scrutiny for some time up to its recent award achievement. Some critics (including Weekly Trust’s Abdulkareem Baba Aminu) have blasted the movie for having what they describe as “racial undertones”, where once again an indigenous people (in this case the Na’vis) are saved by another white man. Really? I didn’t see it that way, maybe because the hero was blue for most of the movie. The major flaw of Avatar, if any as Peter Traverse (movie critic for Rolling Stone) put is, is that the movie “is a cross between Pochantas and Dances with Wolves (sic)” with 3D effects.
Yes, the story of Avatar is recycled so to say and like in Pochantas (which I never bothered to watch till the end, because I never believed Disney could top The Lion King) and Dances with Wolves (which I’ve never seen, but know it stars Kevin Costner who sides with an Indian tribe he’s been sent to kill) the hero belongs to an imperialistic people. In the case of Avatar, the imperialists are us… humans. If black critics or white ones even are complaining about the movie’s saviour being white, I don’t remember white people complaining about the numerous times Will Smith has saved the world (Independence Day, Men In Black, I Am Legend, e.t.c). And no, I don’t think white people see Will Smith as one of them in terms of skin colour or as a non-threatening black. Let’s remember Ice Cube of the one-time gangster rap group N.W.A saved the president and the United States in Triple X: State of the Union and he’s had a “threatening” image over the years rapping about “F—k the Police” and white/black equality, which can be considered threatening to the status quo in America. Although, Ice Cube has softened that image with his family movies… people have to grow up sometimes.
The only complaint about Independence Day was from some Arab critics who weren’t happy that Jeff Goldblum’s character (who helped saved the world) was Jewish in what they claim was Jews restating their “chosen people” status. But that’s not what I’m debating here and that was a long time ago. No one complained when Marlon Wayans’ character in the God awful G.I Joe saved the White House and its white president. I mean I was happy to say a black man who wasn’t Will Smith or Denzel Washington saving the world, even if he was part of a team. Usually it’s the aforementioned two who get to the saving. Admittedly, none of these black actors saved an indigenous people. No, they saved the whole world.
Back to Avatar which also caught heat from the Vatican, for what it described as the worship of nature being a replacement for the worship of God as the underlying message of the movie. Really? I didn’t see that too. Now I don’t know James Cameron’s religious affiliation or if he has any, but last I checked he or any other Hollywood director were not answerable to the Vatican, but to studio executives who want the money they spent back and more. Now I’m treading carefully here, before I get labeled “anti-Christian”, plus my birth name doesn’t help matters, but Avatar didn’t seem to make a mockery of any religion. Yes, the Na’vis worshipped their surrounding, but so did/do the Native Americans. Also there’s no denying the environment is a big issue today. Yes, it’s perhaps the movie’s most obvious underlying message, but no where is there an indication of it as a new substitute for those who already belong to an established religion. The movie raised some issues about our actions as humans towards the environment, which I believe we should respect (I did not say worship).
If there’s any movie I think the Vatican should be targeting, it’s “The Book of Eli” starring Denzel Washington (is anyone complaining about him saving the world now?), where the hero is carrying the last Bible in the world and that doesn’t sound right!
Back to the issue of racial undertones, there’s no denying Hollywood has made movies with such themes. I remember Chris Rock being interviewed on Larry King. He explained why early on in his career he turned down roles offered to him, because it involved him playing some misguided black man, who some white character would come save and he got offered the same type of role consecutively and that was what prompted him to start writing his own scripts. Nick Cannon had a similar complain claiming Hollywood didn’t make enough roles for black people. He too followed in Rock’s footsteps… less successfully. Anyone watch The Underclass man? My point exactly!
Anyone, especially Black complaining that black actors don’t get to shine in Hollywood like their white counterparts should perhaps settle for TV’s The Wire (yes I know, it’s not Hollywood), where 70% of the cast is black and their characters are, wouldn’t you believe it, intelligent too! The show with that many black people must have a black creator right? Wrong! The creator of The Wire is a Jewish white man named David Simon, who I respect for showing real life on TV if you don’t mind some occasional SVLN. I wonder if critics (black or white) would criticize him, claiming he has a “savior complex” for hiring more black people than most TV shows have or for creating some of the most intelligent characters you’ll ever see. Yes, it’s that good! It’s the best thing you’ll ever see… well I think!
Let’s look at the reverse of The Wire with Grey’s Anatomy, where the show’s creator is black and the cast seems to be getting whiter and whiter with every season (not that I or anyone is complaining, though my interest in the show has waned due to recent storylines. Yes, I watch, I’m not ashamed). No one is calling the show’s creator Shonda Rhimes a sell-out (according to her she didn’t write the characters with colour in mind) nor is she being called “the savior of white actors with no job”. But then again TV isn’t Hollywood, yet race is still an ever-present issue. The same network that produced The Wire, HBO also produced the more popular The Sorpranos, a show about a mostly racial Italian mob family. The biggest criticism of the show came from Italian Americas who felt they were portrayed as racist. Black people on other hand loved it, despite knowing the characters were written to look down on people who weren’t white or Catholic.
I agree Hollywood has made some of the most negative portrayal of a people (especially blacks, but black people have contributed as much, ahem, Flavor Flav!) like they seem to do the Arabs of recent (those of you who watch 24 know what I mean). Next it might be Nigerians specifically, even though they’ve already picked on Africans as a whole. As I recall Nigeria was one of the places the villain (Jake Sully’s marine boss) in Avatar served in clearly after some disaster happened (Abdulmuttalib aftermath maybe?).
I’ve been meaning to write about black portrayal in Hollywood for some time now. This whole issue of Avatar having “racial undertone” just brought it back up, but my interest really came when black critics took shot at Daniel Lee’s Precious, which is also making rounds this award season. Critics claimed that all the good black people in the movie were light-skinned (Mariah Carey, Lenny Kravitz, Paula Patton) and that all the bad black people were dark skinned and in the antagonist’s case, overweight (Mo’nique. Although I always thought comedian Monique was fair and Lenny Kravitz, whose real-life father was white was much darker, but that’s by the way.) I hear this light skin/ dark skin has/is being made an issue in the United States among black people and whites as well. I wouldn’t know, plus I haven’t seen the movie. I have however seen District 9, it of Akunyili fame and my only complain about the Nigerian portrayal was they spoke a South African dialect and were suspiciously all dark-skinned and you know we’re not all dark-skinned. If anyone should’ve complained about District 9, it should’ve been the light-skinned people of Nigeria, for not being represented. As far as Nigerians mainly being villains, all you have to do is pick up a newspaper for proof of that. I just the hope the minister doesn’t read this!!!
Another criticism of Precious was that the title character, who is overweight would imagine herself as a skinny white/fair girl. Yes, they’ve been all-round general criticism of the “skinny white girl”, even from fat white girls. The criticism of Precious had me thinking of other black movies and portrayals like the hood classics Boys N The Hood (which I absolutely love, even if for Laurence Fishburne’s minor role as a Vietnam vet who tries to school his already adolescent son on the birds and the bees, about being a man and as he says, “Any fool can make a baby, but it takes a man to be a father”. A positive image of a black man, even though Laurence’s character couldn’t always be there for his son having being divorced from the boy’s mother) and Menace II Society (it’s been long, I can’t remember) and the less celebrated Baby Boy (which brought out Tyrese as an actor) and the college themed Higher Learning. All these movies, except Menace II Society were directed by John Singleton, who went on to direct Shaft and 2 Fast, 2 Furious. Menace II Society was directed by the Hughes Brother, who broke from the “black circle” to direct Johnny Depp in From Hell and the recent more-appropriately-need-to-be-protested-by-the-Vatican The Book of Eli.
Of the four mentioned black movies, Higher Learning to me was the most balanced in race portrayal and not because half the cast was white, although that did play a factor to the story’s theme, but rather because it showed both sides (the Nazi-led white group and the pro-black panther like group), specifically with their leaders had the same train of thought: the education of their people, even if for racial purposes. The “leaders” respectively played by the underrated Cole Hauser and Ice Cube couldn’t stand the fact that their people were in their view somewhat regressing. Cole Hauser’s all white Nazi character felt non-white people were taking away jobs meant for white people, while Ice Cube’s character felt black people weren’t given enough jobs. Both characters were more or less the same people with different skin colour and slightly varying motives.
The real difference between them (and this might interest black people) was that, whereas Ice Cube’s character didn’t mind his people mixing with other races (his character does stand up for the Indians), Cole Hauser’s character had a hard time seeing his people mix with “blacks, protestants and Jews” if I remember. I don’t remember the ending, but both men had some level of respect (and hatred) for each other. One of the most interesting characters in the movie was a white Fresh man played by Michael Rappaport who is torn between his love for rap music and black culture and that of his “whiteness”. He eventually becomes one of Cole Hauser’s easiest victims to manipulate as he is made to feel he owes some sort of allegiance to his being white and higher than others. He eventually becomes one of the most confused characters along the way. His story sounds familiar in race and/or religion.
But back to Avatar, my only concern now is that James Cameron not attempt making a sequel as some fans have been asking. Why ruin what is already the best 3D movie so far? Then again this is a director whose about to break his previous achievement something called, Titanic. I never heard of it!!!
Yes, the story of Avatar is recycled so to say and like in Pochantas (which I never bothered to watch till the end, because I never believed Disney could top The Lion King) and Dances with Wolves (which I’ve never seen, but know it stars Kevin Costner who sides with an Indian tribe he’s been sent to kill) the hero belongs to an imperialistic people. In the case of Avatar, the imperialists are us… humans. If black critics or white ones even are complaining about the movie’s saviour being white, I don’t remember white people complaining about the numerous times Will Smith has saved the world (Independence Day, Men In Black, I Am Legend, e.t.c). And no, I don’t think white people see Will Smith as one of them in terms of skin colour or as a non-threatening black. Let’s remember Ice Cube of the one-time gangster rap group N.W.A saved the president and the United States in Triple X: State of the Union and he’s had a “threatening” image over the years rapping about “F—k the Police” and white/black equality, which can be considered threatening to the status quo in America. Although, Ice Cube has softened that image with his family movies… people have to grow up sometimes.
The only complaint about Independence Day was from some Arab critics who weren’t happy that Jeff Goldblum’s character (who helped saved the world) was Jewish in what they claim was Jews restating their “chosen people” status. But that’s not what I’m debating here and that was a long time ago. No one complained when Marlon Wayans’ character in the God awful G.I Joe saved the White House and its white president. I mean I was happy to say a black man who wasn’t Will Smith or Denzel Washington saving the world, even if he was part of a team. Usually it’s the aforementioned two who get to the saving. Admittedly, none of these black actors saved an indigenous people. No, they saved the whole world.
Back to Avatar which also caught heat from the Vatican, for what it described as the worship of nature being a replacement for the worship of God as the underlying message of the movie. Really? I didn’t see that too. Now I don’t know James Cameron’s religious affiliation or if he has any, but last I checked he or any other Hollywood director were not answerable to the Vatican, but to studio executives who want the money they spent back and more. Now I’m treading carefully here, before I get labeled “anti-Christian”, plus my birth name doesn’t help matters, but Avatar didn’t seem to make a mockery of any religion. Yes, the Na’vis worshipped their surrounding, but so did/do the Native Americans. Also there’s no denying the environment is a big issue today. Yes, it’s perhaps the movie’s most obvious underlying message, but no where is there an indication of it as a new substitute for those who already belong to an established religion. The movie raised some issues about our actions as humans towards the environment, which I believe we should respect (I did not say worship).
If there’s any movie I think the Vatican should be targeting, it’s “The Book of Eli” starring Denzel Washington (is anyone complaining about him saving the world now?), where the hero is carrying the last Bible in the world and that doesn’t sound right!
Back to the issue of racial undertones, there’s no denying Hollywood has made movies with such themes. I remember Chris Rock being interviewed on Larry King. He explained why early on in his career he turned down roles offered to him, because it involved him playing some misguided black man, who some white character would come save and he got offered the same type of role consecutively and that was what prompted him to start writing his own scripts. Nick Cannon had a similar complain claiming Hollywood didn’t make enough roles for black people. He too followed in Rock’s footsteps… less successfully. Anyone watch The Underclass man? My point exactly!
Anyone, especially Black complaining that black actors don’t get to shine in Hollywood like their white counterparts should perhaps settle for TV’s The Wire (yes I know, it’s not Hollywood), where 70% of the cast is black and their characters are, wouldn’t you believe it, intelligent too! The show with that many black people must have a black creator right? Wrong! The creator of The Wire is a Jewish white man named David Simon, who I respect for showing real life on TV if you don’t mind some occasional SVLN. I wonder if critics (black or white) would criticize him, claiming he has a “savior complex” for hiring more black people than most TV shows have or for creating some of the most intelligent characters you’ll ever see. Yes, it’s that good! It’s the best thing you’ll ever see… well I think!
Let’s look at the reverse of The Wire with Grey’s Anatomy, where the show’s creator is black and the cast seems to be getting whiter and whiter with every season (not that I or anyone is complaining, though my interest in the show has waned due to recent storylines. Yes, I watch, I’m not ashamed). No one is calling the show’s creator Shonda Rhimes a sell-out (according to her she didn’t write the characters with colour in mind) nor is she being called “the savior of white actors with no job”. But then again TV isn’t Hollywood, yet race is still an ever-present issue. The same network that produced The Wire, HBO also produced the more popular The Sorpranos, a show about a mostly racial Italian mob family. The biggest criticism of the show came from Italian Americas who felt they were portrayed as racist. Black people on other hand loved it, despite knowing the characters were written to look down on people who weren’t white or Catholic.
I agree Hollywood has made some of the most negative portrayal of a people (especially blacks, but black people have contributed as much, ahem, Flavor Flav!) like they seem to do the Arabs of recent (those of you who watch 24 know what I mean). Next it might be Nigerians specifically, even though they’ve already picked on Africans as a whole. As I recall Nigeria was one of the places the villain (Jake Sully’s marine boss) in Avatar served in clearly after some disaster happened (Abdulmuttalib aftermath maybe?).
I’ve been meaning to write about black portrayal in Hollywood for some time now. This whole issue of Avatar having “racial undertone” just brought it back up, but my interest really came when black critics took shot at Daniel Lee’s Precious, which is also making rounds this award season. Critics claimed that all the good black people in the movie were light-skinned (Mariah Carey, Lenny Kravitz, Paula Patton) and that all the bad black people were dark skinned and in the antagonist’s case, overweight (Mo’nique. Although I always thought comedian Monique was fair and Lenny Kravitz, whose real-life father was white was much darker, but that’s by the way.) I hear this light skin/ dark skin has/is being made an issue in the United States among black people and whites as well. I wouldn’t know, plus I haven’t seen the movie. I have however seen District 9, it of Akunyili fame and my only complain about the Nigerian portrayal was they spoke a South African dialect and were suspiciously all dark-skinned and you know we’re not all dark-skinned. If anyone should’ve complained about District 9, it should’ve been the light-skinned people of Nigeria, for not being represented. As far as Nigerians mainly being villains, all you have to do is pick up a newspaper for proof of that. I just the hope the minister doesn’t read this!!!
Another criticism of Precious was that the title character, who is overweight would imagine herself as a skinny white/fair girl. Yes, they’ve been all-round general criticism of the “skinny white girl”, even from fat white girls. The criticism of Precious had me thinking of other black movies and portrayals like the hood classics Boys N The Hood (which I absolutely love, even if for Laurence Fishburne’s minor role as a Vietnam vet who tries to school his already adolescent son on the birds and the bees, about being a man and as he says, “Any fool can make a baby, but it takes a man to be a father”. A positive image of a black man, even though Laurence’s character couldn’t always be there for his son having being divorced from the boy’s mother) and Menace II Society (it’s been long, I can’t remember) and the less celebrated Baby Boy (which brought out Tyrese as an actor) and the college themed Higher Learning. All these movies, except Menace II Society were directed by John Singleton, who went on to direct Shaft and 2 Fast, 2 Furious. Menace II Society was directed by the Hughes Brother, who broke from the “black circle” to direct Johnny Depp in From Hell and the recent more-appropriately-need-to-be-protested-by-the-Vatican The Book of Eli.
Of the four mentioned black movies, Higher Learning to me was the most balanced in race portrayal and not because half the cast was white, although that did play a factor to the story’s theme, but rather because it showed both sides (the Nazi-led white group and the pro-black panther like group), specifically with their leaders had the same train of thought: the education of their people, even if for racial purposes. The “leaders” respectively played by the underrated Cole Hauser and Ice Cube couldn’t stand the fact that their people were in their view somewhat regressing. Cole Hauser’s all white Nazi character felt non-white people were taking away jobs meant for white people, while Ice Cube’s character felt black people weren’t given enough jobs. Both characters were more or less the same people with different skin colour and slightly varying motives.
The real difference between them (and this might interest black people) was that, whereas Ice Cube’s character didn’t mind his people mixing with other races (his character does stand up for the Indians), Cole Hauser’s character had a hard time seeing his people mix with “blacks, protestants and Jews” if I remember. I don’t remember the ending, but both men had some level of respect (and hatred) for each other. One of the most interesting characters in the movie was a white Fresh man played by Michael Rappaport who is torn between his love for rap music and black culture and that of his “whiteness”. He eventually becomes one of Cole Hauser’s easiest victims to manipulate as he is made to feel he owes some sort of allegiance to his being white and higher than others. He eventually becomes one of the most confused characters along the way. His story sounds familiar in race and/or religion.
But back to Avatar, my only concern now is that James Cameron not attempt making a sequel as some fans have been asking. Why ruin what is already the best 3D movie so far? Then again this is a director whose about to break his previous achievement something called, Titanic. I never heard of it!!!
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
AISHA UMAR YUSUF AND HER SOAP OPERA CONSPIRACY THEORIES
I enjoy a good conspiracy theory. Notice the word, “good”, something that has at least some concrete evidence that can’t be disputed even if the rest of the story is questionable. Aisha’s latest rounds of theories sound like something out of a Hollywood movie yet to be made, where the script is still being tweaked to make sure it’s a success. Now I will admit I have enjoyed her previous theories surrounding the events of 9/11, as much of them had been previously stated by other sources; Aisha was just restating. But her latest theories surrounding the recent botched Christmas bombing seem to have no other sources, but hers. First she claimed she believed our dear brother (he is Nigerian after all) Umar Farouk was drugged, which I think is a bit farfetched. Why would an alleged (for the sake of argument, we’ll use the word “alleged”) suicide bomber drug himself? I’ve heard of people taking alcohol or drugs before committing a crime, but not one where the primary crime involves killing themselves, especially if they think they’re on their way to heaven. It will seem nobler to die of martyrdom with one’s senses intact.
Second of all, if indeed Farouk was drugged, how do we explain his erratic behaviour before the bombing, like cutting ties with his family? Did someone drug him to do that all in the name of learning Arabic and whatnot in Yemen? I don’t know of people getting high to read about religion. Aisha’s second claim was that the Dutch director was part of the frame up and went as far as saying the man was never shown on TV. Actually, my dear Aisha, he was… on CNN. Or is CNN part of the cover-up now? I never saw the director on any other network, but I’m sure his 15 minutes didn’t warrant for more exposure time. It’s not like he landed a failing airplane in the Hudson. Aisha went further to compare the director’s underexposure to Gulliani’s overexposure after the 9/11 crisis and how the mayor was named Time’s man of the year. Gulliani was only named man of the year, because the magazine couldn’t afford to name Osama Bin Laden (the original decided winner) as its man of the year, risking a loss in readership after complaints of the numerous image of the “perpetrator”. So they went for a less controversial individual, yet one still tied to the events of 9/11. Time has a dubious way of picking its annual man of the year, like two years ago, when they gave it to You! PLEASE! They should’ve given it to YouTube, though not a person, it’s still You in a way, but that’s not what we’re discussing here.
The only thing that Aisha wrote in her soap opera conspiracy that seems to hold any water is the fact that the Farouk’s underwear caught fire, yet there was no mention of flesh wounds on his skin and how he managed to walk into court with no sign of pain or recovery. Granted, she raised an important issue there. Now to be fair to Aisha, I’m not saying imperialistic powers like the U.S have never pulled off such elaborate hoax in the hopes of achieving something else, but let’s have some substantial proof. Unless Aisha was on the flight to Detriot, she should keep her theories to a minimum. I’m surprised Media Trust allowed her articles to be published, especially when it’s not under a column, which would make it clear to the reader it’s her opinion. But when it’s published not under a column titled, ‘Conspiracy theories” and just as a newspaper article, it brings to question the meaning of “researched journalism”. I understand the need to jump to conclusion, especially when living in a conspiracy prone world, but the best conspiracies are based on some form of facts. As far as the Christmas bombing, there is none except what we’re being told… for now.
P.S In the case that Aisha is indeed right, she should feel free to say, “I told you so!” I shan’t complain! But I leave you with a conspiracy theory of mine and I’ll let readers decide which has more credibility, mine or Aisha’s. How come the U.S is so hands-on on helping Haiti, even sending firemen from their various states, yet they couldn’t produce the same response in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? I doubt it has anything to do with a different leadership. Are they planning to send in their “economic hit-men”, when the dust settles? You know the people who make business ties for the United States so they keep making money. For example, they hire an American company to rebuild certain parts of Haiti thus gaining an economic advantage over other companies, locally and otherwise.
And here’s an extra one for you: Why do people in the United States who live in hurricane prone areas always seem to build their houses with wood? Haven’t they heard of concrete or bricks? Or is someone making money off wood? That or it must be extremely cheap! Either way someone is making money!
Second of all, if indeed Farouk was drugged, how do we explain his erratic behaviour before the bombing, like cutting ties with his family? Did someone drug him to do that all in the name of learning Arabic and whatnot in Yemen? I don’t know of people getting high to read about religion. Aisha’s second claim was that the Dutch director was part of the frame up and went as far as saying the man was never shown on TV. Actually, my dear Aisha, he was… on CNN. Or is CNN part of the cover-up now? I never saw the director on any other network, but I’m sure his 15 minutes didn’t warrant for more exposure time. It’s not like he landed a failing airplane in the Hudson. Aisha went further to compare the director’s underexposure to Gulliani’s overexposure after the 9/11 crisis and how the mayor was named Time’s man of the year. Gulliani was only named man of the year, because the magazine couldn’t afford to name Osama Bin Laden (the original decided winner) as its man of the year, risking a loss in readership after complaints of the numerous image of the “perpetrator”. So they went for a less controversial individual, yet one still tied to the events of 9/11. Time has a dubious way of picking its annual man of the year, like two years ago, when they gave it to You! PLEASE! They should’ve given it to YouTube, though not a person, it’s still You in a way, but that’s not what we’re discussing here.
The only thing that Aisha wrote in her soap opera conspiracy that seems to hold any water is the fact that the Farouk’s underwear caught fire, yet there was no mention of flesh wounds on his skin and how he managed to walk into court with no sign of pain or recovery. Granted, she raised an important issue there. Now to be fair to Aisha, I’m not saying imperialistic powers like the U.S have never pulled off such elaborate hoax in the hopes of achieving something else, but let’s have some substantial proof. Unless Aisha was on the flight to Detriot, she should keep her theories to a minimum. I’m surprised Media Trust allowed her articles to be published, especially when it’s not under a column, which would make it clear to the reader it’s her opinion. But when it’s published not under a column titled, ‘Conspiracy theories” and just as a newspaper article, it brings to question the meaning of “researched journalism”. I understand the need to jump to conclusion, especially when living in a conspiracy prone world, but the best conspiracies are based on some form of facts. As far as the Christmas bombing, there is none except what we’re being told… for now.
P.S In the case that Aisha is indeed right, she should feel free to say, “I told you so!” I shan’t complain! But I leave you with a conspiracy theory of mine and I’ll let readers decide which has more credibility, mine or Aisha’s. How come the U.S is so hands-on on helping Haiti, even sending firemen from their various states, yet they couldn’t produce the same response in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? I doubt it has anything to do with a different leadership. Are they planning to send in their “economic hit-men”, when the dust settles? You know the people who make business ties for the United States so they keep making money. For example, they hire an American company to rebuild certain parts of Haiti thus gaining an economic advantage over other companies, locally and otherwise.
And here’s an extra one for you: Why do people in the United States who live in hurricane prone areas always seem to build their houses with wood? Haven’t they heard of concrete or bricks? Or is someone making money off wood? That or it must be extremely cheap! Either way someone is making money!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)