Martha’s Impeccable Track Record: An Imperative to Differ

Dear Martha,

Many have undertaken the unnecessary path to venerate you as Mother Karua since your declaration of higher political ambition. I find this a contradiction in terms since your mothering ability in your family itself is questionable. But that is something we may discuss later, if you are willing.

For today, I am compelled to write you this important letter. Kindly take time to read and give serious thought to the pertinent matters raised herein. I know that you have a busy schedule, especially now that you have embarked on the presidential campaigns that is still four years away from us. But again, you are the justice – or is it injustice minister – you can change the constitution when you want, right?Anyway, read carefully as you prayerfully consider abandoning your premature ambition for Kenya’s top office.

Martha, I have told you before but it seems you don’t take advice – unsolicited or sought. You will not be Kenya’s president..No! Hapana. Neither will the other old folks and noisemakers, and comrades in theft – Tinga, UK, Ruto, Mudavadi, Saitoti, Wiper. None of you qualifies on any ground…well, I take that back, only age and recent compromises disqualifies Tinga.

But as for you Martha, your fate was sealed way back when you compromised your personal morality.

Your problem is that of confused morality – almost somewhat hypocritic. Reminds me of Odili in Chinua Achebe’s “Man of the People.” Quite a moralising character – running around castigating Chief Nanga for embezzling public funds and womanizing. True, it is – Chief Nanga was a disgrace – very immoral and uncultured – just like many of your fellow colleagues in the cabinet and parliament. They steal both money, maize and oil. They also murder and rape – literally.

Yet that doesn’t make you saintly either – only a superficial juxtapositioning by your myopic supporters portray you as saint. I haven’t heard of any case of inordinate embezzlement of public funds on your side but I can’t rule that out either. But is embezzlement of public funds the only criteria for defining bad governance?

I beg to differ. You have in the past made serious mistakes that compromise your sexual morality and regard to family… This tells us much about your values. You see, the fact that you abandoned your former husband in your characteristic fit and and rage – maybe because you argued on some thing- whatever it was – important or not (thats your problem – people disagree in their marriages but still make up for it) is reason enough to suspect that you could easily abandon Kenyans if the citizenry proved adulterous or idolatrous ( I use the two words to stand for political abandonment). Your inability to tone your language and respond with a level of diplomacy obviously qualifies you more as a college team cheerleader than a CEO of any professional organisation.

Worst still, is the previous media reports and rumour that is still going round to date that you have an ilicit affair with a religious leader who is supposed to be a celibate. You see Martha, that complicates the situation more for you. Everybody knows that at one time or the other every human being wants to love and be loved. But they also understand that this love factor comes with responsibility. You can’t have your cake and eat it. If you want to enjoy the benefit of sexual relationship you must take the conventional and culturally accepted path of pure matrimony. But you see dear Martha, it has been universally accepted through history that man is the head of the family. Therefore, engaging in holy matrimony means that you take your rightful place as woman – a wife and mother – in the family. This prevails regardless of your power and stature in the public domain. If you think I am joking ask madam Specioza Kazibwe, the former vice president of Uganda who still received a few slaps on the chick from the husband despite being surrounded by state bodyguards.

I know this is tough for you and you would rather die than submit to the authority of a man. And I agree with your attitude and character and that is why I am advising you to forget about it completely.

If you cannot aptly sought out petty family conflicts, how on earth are you supposed to solve an international border conflict? If you have failed to aptly run the tiniest social unit, how will you run a nation? If you can’t stomach divergent opinions among your peers – how much more are you handicapped in handling media and public scrutiny and criticism?

Education is not the only qualification for a good governor – in fact experience tells us the opposite. If Amin governed Uganda with absolutely nothing between his ears, I bet even Kalembe Ndile qualifies with at least a higher degree of good sense than most of you. He has a better Wanjiku eye view – a pertinent ingredient that is obviously lacking among the current political elite of our day. I believe that with determination and good advice he would do better. And this does not obliterate his buffoonery – I am just using this extreme example to draw a severe parallel and show you how far from the track you have run – otherwise, apart from being comical, I don’t know what else is in Kalembe. Yet even as you question his grasp of pertinent issues that pertain to public policy and governance – you and I know that that is the reason governments employ technocrats – or didn’t Moi and Kenyatta employ the most brilliant of technocrats to think and write speeches for them – unfortunately for both, they killed and maimed most of these people.

The zenith of this open letter is to draw your attention to the fallacy and emptiness of your hypocritic behaviour, at least as it seems to me. While you seem to be strong in opposing institutional corruption, something that I laud, your weakness lies in your partial understanding of morality. Just like the Odili character in Achebe’s novel, you may publicly condemn corruption. You may decline to take bribes and kickbacks (though I highly doubt that) but in the night you are running around compromising the same morality that you claim to defend. Odili, castigated Chief the honourable Nanga for corruption and immorality. Yet he had been sleeping around with his college sweetheart, slept with the white man’s wife and was running hysterically after Chief Nanga’s bride. Thus even though he refused to taking Nanga’s bribe, his morals remain absolutely questionable and to me that abrogates his fight for good governance. For what is good governance with wanting morality? Ask Bill or King David – they have a story to tell.

Since you declared your intent to run for the highest office in the land, I have followed your supporters with bemusement. I have noticed that your candidacy draws its largest support from a bunch of mature (I mean agewise – most seem to me to be mentally and psychologically unstable) single women. This is a worrying trend for it seems to suggest that disregard for the social institution is after all a great idea. It in fact almost portrays it as fashionable and trendy. Martha, a good woman is the one that show younger women how to care for the family. Even hens know this better.

Martha, what I am saying is that if you want to run for the presidency first make your family an example. We are not willing to be experimented on anymore, as you can see the grand coalition experiment is after all a fiasco.

Please note that of all the aspiring candidates, I saw you worthy of this advice. The remaining wannabes are non-starters. UK needs to graduate from thuggery and drug addiction, and Ruto must equally grow up from thuggery and hypocrisy. Saitoti, like Raila has reached political menopause, but most importantly he is a bitter man whose only goal is to prove a point to Moi. Mudavadi has never been his own man and he shares with Saitoti the heavy burden of the goldenberg scandal. Wiper is a non-starter – he stands for nothing or do you know of any? He is also a hypocrite and a coward. And of course who are Wetangula and Bifwoli? Tinga still seems to be the constant revolutionary but again as I have mentioned, recent political compromise and age are his political undoing. Or wasn’t it said that “peace whenever possible, truth at all times.”

Other things you need to work on Martha include, interpersonal relationship, communication, deportment (try to put a smile), “winning by losing” – I mean you don’t have to have the last word in a debate – I know you are a woman but so are the others in parliament – Sally, Jebii, Mirugi, Laboso etc. They state their points and move on – but as for you, you are unnecessarily irritating. Once in while go to Church and learn one or two hymns (they are soothing to the broken heart). Seek a therapist and deal with your past – it helps to be free.

Finally, we just want to start afresh. All the current political office holders should be banned from holding any other public office come 2012. Give Kenya a clean slate and we will build from there.

Perfect, Unfailing Answers…

Way back in High school when I was preparing for my History paper II and Geography paper II I found these answers very common to every and any other question. Take for example. List the hindrances to economic growth in Kenya. What are the challenges of deep sea fishing on the East Coast of Africa? List some of the challenges to horticultural farming in Kenya. All these questions could be well answered thus:

1. Poor infrastructure

2. Lack of technical knowhow

3. Limited manpower 

4. Poor government policies

5. Political marginalisation

6. Exploitation by middlemen and corruption

7. Lack of capital

8. Lack of political goodwill

9. Neocolonialism

and the latest: Post election violence

The same answers can be given in response to the following questions:

1. What are the reasons for increased crime rate in Kenya?

2. Why can’t Kibaki and Raila tackle corruption?

3. Why are we going hungry today?

4. Why is there no electoral commission in Kenya?

5. Why are many adults unmarried in Kenya?

…and now to a more personal level:

1. Why are you not working?

2. Why don’t you have a wife?

3. Why are you mad at your wife?

4. What is wrong with your boss?

5….and you can think of any other question… they are pretty much answered above regardless.

So They Want to Censure Martha?

With Kenyan politicians playing to the gallery who needs comedians? And why I hear yes and neighs in response to the recently proposed Karua’s censure motion? Why take sides in battle that is no battle at all?

Let me set the records straight. If I was in parliament I would have vehemently opposed the Karua censure motion for only one reason. I would have argued that since motions or no motions makes no difference as the censured ones will still find their way back to the cabinet, there is no need wasting time going through the most recent parliamentary routine, or should I say custom and tradition?

Being a more honourable “mweshimiwa” than others, grossly aware of the camera that is pointed at me in the most poignant of positions, I would take advantage and make my constituents know the fabric I am made of. Of course this is in total ignorance of the proverb “a fool is wise till he opens his mouth.” Yes, I would eloquently aver that there were are more important and urgent things that beckoned our “wisdom” than discussing a “mere woman.” I would further argue that it is backward, retrogressive and amounts to first degree cowardice trying to kick out a woman whom we all know is as good as a lame duck in so far as the presidential political contest is concerned. So the “brilliant mweshimiwa” I am will prevail upon the male legislators to show some courage and decorum by totally ignoring discussing a woman whom we all know can be tamed by just one man. You see, the cultural fabric that enclothes us has given us this undue mileage over the feminine gender. So being obviously ahead in the race, we need not waste our limited time, energy and other unqualified resources “killing a mosquito with a sledge hummer” as one PLO once put it.

I know that this stupid argument (being the kind of stupid mweshimiwa I am, I will obviously not see it as stupid but as the epitome wisdom) will be thunderously applauded by fellow stupid “male wasioheshimiwa.” I can see honourable “Fulani” cheering wildly, even though he is aware that he did not fairly beat Mama Mboga in the last parliamentary election. Another dishonourable member will take advantage of the ensuing commotion to wink at another female legislator whom he has been admiring since the opening of the 10th parliament but he has never mastered the courage to tell her so. You see this coward MP is after all a clever chap, he has foreseen the introduction of sexual harassment policy in the house and does not want to be caught in its web so he displays his not so refined morals in a concealed wink as he takes advantage of the prevailing situation.

Just then my eye catches glimpse of my “fellow learned friend” who is staring at me in a manner likely to suggest that I have not mentioned an important point in the argument. Since I am too slow to remember what we discussed last night (as a matter of fact, I was drunk after my third round and couldn’t wait to take away my recently acquired ndogo ndogo (the recently declared Miss Something – I don’t know what?) so I had switched off the conversation at that point. Indeed there was nothing to remember) I ignore him and continue to hammer home my point.

My learned friend then whispers something to the ears of mweshimiwa Mamba who promptly proceeds to raise a point of order. The poor mweshimiwa reminds the house that the character who is the subject of today’s debate is no child play. He proceeds to remind the house that the honourable in question is known for her venomous attack on the male species and gives an example of her chasing away her former (now late) husband from their matrimonial home and proceeding forth to hire a fellow male legislator as her official handbag career. Before he can ask fellow legislators to support the motion, the honourable Madam rises up on a point of order and the rest is history.

Being the wise honourable I am, I had come to the house with a “non-partisan” open mind (read, I had eaten on both sides and feared being busted by either side or I am just plain stupid and cannot stand my own ground in a debate, like you know who from Mwingi). I know some of you skeptics are saying that I have nothing between my ears and cannot tell the difference between the yes and no in any discussion so normally I play the pacifier.

Derailer warning…

That reminds me of this village shylock I have always wanted to blog about but I keep procrastinating. Anyway word has it that he did not go to school and he even failed in a welding course since he could not read the tape measure. When advised to consider a driving school he plainly rejected the advise. Anyway, what would you expect of one who cannot ride a bicycle yet he is from Kano plains where every nine year old  – male or female, rides a border border. The problem with the shylock is that he owns many bicycles that were deposited as security by his debtors but they defaulted. Anyway, that is story for another day. What i wanted to say about this man is that he buys two newspapers on a daily basis. Of course the who village knows that he cannot read but that does not deter him. I love that spirit! Well, he carries his newspapers in a certain angle that invites passerbys to loudly read the headline. From there on he gets his first content of the day’s news. When he gets to a local joint he puts his paper on the table and starts to lecture other patrons on the subject of the headline. Meanwhile other people are reading and commenting on more articles in the paper. Once he has gathered enough information for the day, he is set… the poor man will proceed forth to lecture everything he finds along his way – including goats and sheep. So who is the fool? Need he go to school if he can get the information without reading? Methinks this jolly good fellow is a clever chap. Somebody said knowledge is having the information or knowing where to get it when you need it. Huh!

************

Back to our censure motion, I will not argue like I suggested above for two reasons. The most obvious one is that though I may indeed be stupid, I am not a mweshimiwa. But the second reason, which is the bane of this post is that we need the comedy. Kenyans elected the MPs to serve them and they are doing this pretty well. The only “small” problem is that they are serving us in a way that we did not expect. Well, neither did they themselves expect the same – it is just a product of their buffoonery. They have ignorantly set up a theatre in our dimly lit living rooms. It seems the gods are recompensing us for our all hard work without play – an they are using our Fraudstars (Politicians).

You see, it is very backward to argue that they are wasting our time debating useless issues whereas there are important things to discuss – Post-election violence (I don’t know what about it to discuss), the internally displaced, famine, Mungiki, extrajudicial killings, corruption and impunity, Land Reforms (Who owns the large tracts of land all over the country), Migingo Island, Harambee Stars’ allowance, and many other important things including majimbo (yes, I said majimbo. It needs to be discussed thoroughly and with utmost sobriety without drawing unnecessary sentimental arguments based on selfish intentions and desires of “stakeholders” (thieves). If it is not discussed in sobriety we will see another war in 2017.

I know that these are important things to discuss and resolve but being a student of history I know that I will be an empty debe (tin) – calling for political responsibility on these matters. It is sad to say that our political fraternity is made up of hypocrites, then thieves and haters – nothing else. Or didn’t you ever read that man is the only animal that remains your friend when he intends to eat you until when he has eaten you all up? That is the best and only description of our politicians. They are anthropoktonos – Greek for man eaters. Literally they are.

Scratch my back I scratch your back

The Kenyan political class is one big family of thieves also known as “majambazi”. They are just but thugs! They are rapists, thieves, murderers,  – every other sinful adjective describes them. Since their sins are all inclusive they use the principle of “scratch my back I scratch your back” or didn’t you see the way Ruto and Kiraitu covered for each other? Lucy, Saitoti and Kibaki are also another example. Formerly Biwott and Gor Sungu (you remember the theatrics “are you threatening this commission now?) at the Ouko Commission of inquiry.

And so you want to censure Martha? Martha is no saint, That much I know. The blood of many Kenyans spilled early last year as she played supremacy war making inordinate unfortunate statements that only continued to spark anger amongst warring groups in the last election. Or didn’t proverbs teach of a good answer calming anger and a bad response fueling it? (Proverbs 15:1). So Martha is equally another guilty one and she can do nothing to make her saintly – nothing whatsoever. Like the other obvious murderers of her political class, she is equally a culprit. Yet Martha is not worse than most of her colleagues in government. In fact a comparison gives her much credit and relief. It is this game of comparison that makes her look like a saint in the eyes of many – including herself and Mungatana. I mean, with the obvious scandals of the Kiraitus, Rutos, Kimunyas, Saitotis, Uhuru, Mudavadi, etc isn’t Martha holy?

Apparently the answer is obviously yes to many Kenyans. But wait until you find out how these people scratch each others’ back then you will know how deadly they are. Start with the one Ababu Namwamba who is pushing this motion and ask him about the maize scandal (is this what he is covering) or about the legwork hewas doing for Martha just a few months ago – how much was he paid and what went wrong? Or talk to that Simon Mbugua and ask him about that Car Bazaar near Nyayo Studium. Mbugua who the other day was dodging cameras in court – a lawbreaker like Mbugua wants to censure Martha? Ah! Go and read about the adulterous women whom Jesus saved from stoning. Remember his words “If you are not guilty cast the first stone.” Response: They all walked away from the eldest to the youngest.

So it all goes round and round. The censure motion is indeed meaningless to Kenyans and so are other insignificant debates. In fact the only value we get from our parliamentary proceedings is entertainment. In fact they are so effective that we may not need theatres for the next four years. Consequently, the ministry of Culture should be disbanded as all the MPs are serving effectively in this capacity.

That is the only reason why I support the Karua censure motion. I know that I will be treated to an exciting comic play, though not original because I am sure Ababu will bring on the same old lines, Mbugua will not speak in parliament ( he doesn’t have the head or mouth to do that apart from when he is calling Luos pepo mbaya kutoka Nyanza), then Charles Kilonzo will remind Karua that she has only one degree before Khalwale seals it with the submission that Martha has no husband while he and other honourables have wive, children and postgraduate education. But Martha will put up a spirited fight claiming that her University of Nairobi Law Degree is in fact stronger than Kiraitu’s Degrees from Harvard. She will mention that she is a Mother, a parent and a Women’s leader and that the motion will hurt her innocent family and friends. I am not sure what Mungatana will say this time, but I am certain he will talk. Ruto will pretend that he doesn’t play in such leagues. Uhuru will have generously distributed cash before the motion and will be nursing hangovers during the proceedings. One thing is for sure though – He will vote yes for the motion.Wako and Ringera cannot and will not say anything but the motion is most blessed by them.

Of course Martha does not have many friends so she will lose the motion to the rogues but who will go ahead and demand for her resignation. Martha will reject the calls and the next day Mungatana will call a press conference where he will threten to reveal the crimes of those behind the censure. The next weekend they will head to the Coast where they will make declarations in a poorly attended rally and Martha will still declare her candidature for the presidency come 2012 as if the Grand Coalition Government has the balls to last the next two weeks.

Kenyans will watch the debate, some live, others in the news bulletin. People will discuss the censure in the streets. The Civil society will call for a demonstration demanding Martha’s resignation and a few idlers will walk down the streets chanting Martha must Go! There will be no drama and most Kenyans will still go hungry. They will forget about Martha and look elsewhere for somebody to blame for their hunger.

Then the next censure motion will come and it will go and we will still be hungry.  Meanwhile a few more scandals will be brewing in one ministry or the other. Too sad!

Submissive Women are In Fact Progressive

I wrote this article written for Yakuti Magazine  where it was published a year ago. I have however reproduced it here owing to the timeliness of its message in this day and age.

1 Peter 3:1,7 and Colossians 3:18 provide magnificent texts for understanding submission as detailed in God’s ideal plan for marriage.

1 Peter 3:1,7: Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; … Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

Col. 3:18: Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

I asked my friend, Eddy, the implication of the statement “wives submit to your husbands” according to Peter and Paul. Her response was rather cautious. She said “It simply means letting the man be the head of the home.” Seeking to clarify the practical implication of the word headship, she said it just meant that the woman allows the man to make decisions. Another friend, Alice had this to say: “submission is taking your husband as the authority and the head of the house as well as the head of the wife. Practically, when there are disagreeable issues the back stops with the man.” But goes on to say that the Petrine passage must be interpreted with verse seven in mind.

Indeed there is much misunderstanding today about what the Bible means when it says that wives are to “be submissive” to their husbands, this text is very helpful in correcting wrong understandings and practices. If the Bible is the inspired word of God, why would God have left this passage in there? It’s a source of ridicule from the secular world. It’s just about the most attractive target of radical feminists and other enemies of Christianity desperate to ravage the Bible’s moral and spiritual authority. The modern, secular, feminist-driven culture rails against the idea of wives submitting to their husbands in marriage: “Insane! Barbaric! Patriachal! Fascist!”

Now this is an interesting reaction when you consider their alternative. The secular folks promote a value system that encourages women to submit to any number of men outside of marriage. If a man wants to have sex with you, with no forethought or concern for the physical, emotional, medical, financial, or social consequences to you, let him, they say. Let him, whoever he is, use your body for his momentary pleasure with no expectation of responsibility for the results. Women are encouraged to put themselves at the mercy of selfishness, egotism, uncontrolled anger—and then rage about the damage men do.
But speaking of God: Did God set marriage up the way Paul and Peter writes in Ephesians, Colossians and 1 Peter out of spite for women? Does the Christian God despise and devalue women as much as the world accuses the Christian Church of doing? The Gospel says, “No”—resoundingly! Jesus liberated women from the outdated straightjacket they wore consistently—everywhere and in every age—until Jesus. And everyday and everyplace since, every action by, for, and against women has been judged by the standard Jesus established for their fair and honourable treatment.

“Well, maybe Jesus is okay and apostles the ones who have the problem with women.” Most people think these passages makes no earthly sense at all today. Of course, God has never been particularly concerned with or impressed by “earthly sense.” All right, then, “Why would God make marriage to be this way?”

Meaning of the word submission

At the bone of contention in this discourse is the word submission. Now it is important to recognize that words are not invariable or wooden constants, but are capable of semantic ranges that depend on contextual, lexical, and other grammatical features by which one may ascertain precision in meaning. The key words that must be examined are ‘submission/subjection’, and ‘weaker vessel’.

The Oxford Dictionary defines submission as: “the action of presenting something formally for consideration or for a decision to be made; “the acceptance of defeat, or of another’s power; the action or state of submitting to somebody”. The adjective submissive is defined as “willing to show obedience and yield to the authority of others.” The verb ‘submit’ is defined as “to accept the authority, control or superior strength of somebody or something.”

Normally the dictionary only gives the denotation of words but downplays the significance of what they may connote. A further lexicographical study would suffice for the unlocking of the true meaning of this word. Peter and Paul uses the Greek word ύποτασσομεναι which is a compound word consisting of ύπω and τασσω. ύπω is a preposition with a genitive pronoun – under; hence used to express influence. Τασσω is a verb meaning to arrange, to set or to appoint.

An amalgamation of the two words leads to a compound word ύποτασσομεναι which literally means to place under. It is in the feminine gender – thus expecting the wives (subject of the verb) to be of the same (feminine) gender. This permanently seals all possibility of the liberals’ cry for gay marriage. The present passive participle tense denotes an action in progress. Therefore the submission is not a one time action but linear. It calls for continuous, progressive obedience. Within the cultural context, upotassomenai was a Greek military term meaning “to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader”. In non-military use, it was “a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden.”

Translated Words

The other word that must be understood in clear terms if we are to unlock this puzzle is the “weaker vessel”. The first word weaker is the Greek Ασθνεστέρώ – and is the dative singular, comparative adjective of ασθενής (nominative, singular, masculine, adjective) a compound word α+σθενής (strength) thus when combined it means without strength, weak, infirm (cf. Matthew 2:41, Mark 14:38, 1 Peter 3:7, ), helpless – Romans 5:6; imperfect, inefficient – Galatians 4:9; feeble or without energy. It is an adjective modifying the noun Vessel (Σκεύει meaning – a vessel, an implement).

“Vessel” was a common Greek metaphor for “body” since Greeks thought of souls living temporarily in bodies. To understand the phrase “weaker vessel” one must look at the preceding word for woman gunaikeio. Wayne Grudem suggests that in the phrase, “Bestowing honour on the woman” (RSV), the word “woman” translates to gunaikeio, a rare word that is used only here in the New Testament. It means more literally “the feminine one,” and suggests that Peter is looking to the characteristic nature of womanhood or femininity and seeing in it an appropriateness for receiving honour. It is appropriate that those who are “feminine,” those who give characteristic expression to “womanhood,” should receive special honour, for this is what God has directed.

What then does submission imply in marriage? Wayne Grudem says that submission is the inner quality of gentleness that affirms the leadership of the husband. “Be submissive to your husbands” means that a wife will willingly submit to her husband’s authority and leadership in the marriage. It means making a choice to affirm her husband as leader within the limits of obedience to Christ. It includes a demeanor that honors him as leader even when she dissents. Of course, it is an attitude that goes much deeper than mere obedience, but the idea of willing obedience to a husband’s authority is certainly part of this submission, as is clear from verses 5-6. There Peter illustrates being “submissive to their own husbands” with the example of Sarah, “who obeyed Abraham,” thus showing that obeying (hypakouo) is the means by which Sarah was being submissive (hupotasso, the same word used in verse 1). Moreover, this submission is a respectful affirmation, for Peter recalls that Sarah obeyed Abraham and “called him master” (verse 6

Further understanding of the nature of this submission is gained from Peter’s description of the beauty that accompanies it, the beauty of “a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight” (verse 4). The adjective gentle (praus) only occurs three other times in the New Testament, twice referring to Christ (Matthew 11:29; 21:5; also 5:5), but its related noun, translated “gentleness” or “meekness,” is more frequent (Galatians 5:23; 6:1; James 3:13; etc.). It means “not insistent on one’s own rights,” or “not pushy, not selfishly assertive,” “not demanding one’s own way.” Such a gentle and quiet spirit will be beautiful before other human beings, even unbelieving husbands (verses 1-2), but even more important, it “is of great worth in God’s sight.” Why? No doubt because such a spirit is the result of quiet and continual trust in God to supply one’s needs, and God delights in being trusted (cf. 1 Peter 1:5, 7-9, 21; 2:6-7, 23; 5:7).

In describing the things that accompany this submission, Peter focuses on the inward attitudes of the heart. When he says that a wife’s source of beauty should be “the inner self” (verse 4), he is speaking of her inward nature, her true personality. It is not visible in itself, but it is made known quickly through words and actions that reveal inner attitudes. Unfading (Greek aphthartos) is an adjective that the New Testament uses consistently to speak of heavenly realities, things that are not subject to aging or decay, things that will not fade away with the passing of this present world. Peter uses this adjective without a noun following it, so the noun he intends must be supplied by the reader from the context. Various suggestions have been made (RSV, “imperishable jewel;” NIV, “unfading beauty;” NASB, “imperishable quality”), but the sense is roughly the same in all of them: a gentle and quiet spirit is something that has beauty that will last for eternity, in contrast to the fleeting beauty of jewellery or clothing.
Submission takes cognizance of an authority that is not mutual. Evangelical feminists are the most popular protagonists of “mutual submission” theory. One would agree with them if 1). Peter was addressing both genders (which he happens not to), and 2). By the statement “mutual submission” they meant that the wife and husband are to be thoughtful and considerate towards each other and put each others’ interests before their own – something aptly consistent with New Testament theology. In which case “Mutual submission” would then mean that the husband is to be unselfish in his exercise of leadership in the family and the wife is to be unselfish in her submission to and support of that leadership. Even with this kind of thinking one would agree that this use of submission is far fetched and does not accurately interpret Peter’s thought. In the whole of Scripture, the husband is at no time called upon to submission to his wife and the reverse is also true. The husband does not have to, and indeed should not submit to his wife’s authority. But “mutual submission” within marriage as the evangelical feminists put it is such a wicked invention, a wishful thinking – an utmost impossibility, and an ultimate disregard for God’s word in the name of alternative interpretation. These heretics apply the phrase to all texts that say wives should submit to their husbands and deny that any submission to authority is intended. According to them, mutual submission in marriage implies that wives are to submit to husbands and husbands are to submit to wives in exactly the same way. According to this view, the husband has no unique authority or leadership responsibility in the marriage. Usually Ephesians 5:21, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ,” is claimed to support this view.

To legitimize this spiritual-intellectual fraud, evangelical feminists must take two steps in their misinterpretation of Scripture. First, they fail to account for the fact that wives are told several times in the New Testament to submit to their husbands without an equal reverse command to the husbands. If this was a critical requirement as they falsely claim, then the New Testament authors would have included it in their writings. To ignore such an “important” principle is unforgiveable error and inconsistent with the teaching of biblical inerrancy and fallibility. Thus, this aspect of feminist evangelicalism is not biblical and must be discarded.

The other illegitimate step taken by the evangelical feminists in Bible interpretation is seen when they change the meaning of the word hupotasso (“submit to,” “be subject to”), giving it a meaning that it nowhere requires, something like “be thoughtful and considerate; act in love” (toward another), without any sense of obedience to an authority. This is not a legitimate meaning for the term, which always implies a relationship of submission to an authority.

Following the hermeneutical principle of Scripture interprets Scripture; we explore the use of the term elsewhere to see whether the words usage gives the same meaning. Thus far Luke 2:51 uses it to refer to the submission of Jesus to the authority of His parents; Luke 10:17 of demons being subject to the disciples (Luke 10:17—clearly the meaning “act in love, be considerate” cannot fit here); Romans 13:1, 5; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13 – of citizens being subject to governing authorities etc. In all these usage, there is no reversal of relationship.

It is noteworthy, however, that though the wife’s submission to her husband is a universal principle, it is takes different practical dimensions in different cultural contexts. Yet this is also true in so far as cultural forms or practices do not contradict, but rather complement Scripture.

Submission to authority must also not be taken to mean obedience or compliance to dictatorial tendencies – even evil ones. Nowhere does Scripture condone or support the abuse of wives by husbands, but explicitly forbids even harsh attitudes (Colossians 3:19; 1 Peter 3:7), and therefore certainly condemns any physical violence used by husbands against wives. Evangelical churches have a strong responsibility to prevent such abuse and to protect those threatened or harmed by it.

Peter illustrates what he means by submission by referring to the lives of holy women who hoped in God. Although he specifically mentions Sarah in verse 6, the plural “women” refers to godly women generally in the Old Testament. The pattern of their lives was that those who were hoping in God (the present participle suggests continuing in hope over time) used to adorn themselves “in this way,” or “so” (houtos, “thus,” referring to adorning with a gentle and quiet spirit). The word “adorn” (RSV; kosmeo) is the verb related to the noun “adorning” in verse 3, and its imperfect tense indicates continuing or repeated action over time in the past, “they were repeatedly or continually adorning themselves” in this way.
“They were submissive to their husbands” (verse 5) brings us back to the theme of verses 1-2 and indicates the relationship between such submission and the inward beauty of verses 3-4. Quiet confidence in God produces in a woman the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, but it also enables her to submit to her husband’s authority without fear that it will ultimately be harmful to her well-being or her personhood.

The example of Sarah’s obedience would be an appropriate encouragement to the wives to whom Peter was writing, for Sarah became the mother of all God’s people in the old covenant (Isaiah 51:2; cf. Galatians 4:22-26), even though there had been many times in which following Abraham had meant trusting God in uncertain, unpleasant, and even dangerous situations (Genesis 12:1, 5, 10-15; 13:1; 20:2-6 [cf. verse 12]; 22:3). Yet Peter says believing women are now her children (or “daughters”), the true members of her spiritual family. To be Sarah’s daughter is to be a joint heir of the promises and the honor given to her and to Abraham. condition for being Sarah’s “daughters” is “if you do what is right and do not give way to fear” (verse 6). Both verbs are again present participles indicating a pattern of life continued over time: “If you are doing what is right and not giving way to fear,” then you are (more accurately, “you have become”) Sarah’s daughters. Peter’s insistence on doing what is right is a reminder that no acts of disobedience in Sarah’s life are to be imitated by Christian wives (cf. Genesis 16:2, 6; 18:15; perhaps 20:5); it is her submission to her husband and her trust in God that Peter commends. The condition “if you … do not give way to fear” is another way in which faith finds expression. A woman with a gentle and quiet spirit who continues hoping in God will not be terrified by circumstances or by an unbelieving or disobedient husband (cf. Genesis 20:6).

In an age when submission to authority is frequently denigrated and thought to be degrading and dehumanizing, Peter’s words remind us that submission to rightful authority is beautiful and right in God’s world. It is “for the Lord’s sake” (2:13) that Christians are to be subject to God-ordained authorities, whether in civil government (2:13-17), in employment (2:18-20), in the family (3:1-6), or in the church (5:5). Specifically within marriage, the beauty of a wife’s submission to her husband is evident to unbelievers, who are attracted to Christ through it (verses 1-2). Peter also expects this beauty to be evident to believing husbands and to other people generally, for this is the beauty that he tells Christian women to make their “adorning”-their source of beauty (verse 4). This is the beauty that adorned women of the Old Testament who “put their hope in God” and “were submissive to their own husbands” (verse 5). This beauty also ought to be seen and felt by the Christian wife herself, for it is not accompanied by fear (verse 6), but by reverence, purity (verse 2), moral uprightness (verse 6), quietness of spirit (verse 4), and hope in God (verse 5). Finally, the beauty of this submission is evident to God, for the gentle and quiet spirit that accompanies this submission in God’s sight is “of great worth” (verse 4).

A complete commentary of the Petrine passage on submission in marriage is not quite complete without commenting on the nature of the husbands’ leadership. For the purpose of brevity, I’ll only suggest that the husband’s role in a marriage relationship is not a dictatorial, anarchist and egocentric one but rather one of honour unto the weaker vessel. This kind of leadership understands that there are differences between the husband and the wife, the weaker vessel, who is more vulnerable to being hurt by a selfish, domineering husband. Secondly, the husband must understand the equality between husband and wife: “Since you are joint heirs of the grace of life” (RSV). One who has equal standing in God’s kingdom is worthy of equal honour and thoughtful, loving attention.

Of the Internet Scams and our West African Brothers

This is a distinctly oga story. Really, our beloved brothers from West Africa refuse to learn. I am not sure whether this is pure stubborness or just plain stupidity. All I know is that they are very persistent with this thing. They are caught every other day with international crimes – if not drug peddling, then it is money laundering or internet fraud.

I know it is unfair to stereotype, after all don’t we have Kenyans, Europeans, Asians, and Americans who are equally guilty of one kind of theft or another. As I write this piece, my credit card has been blocked after some fraudstar accessed my details and made some unauthorised transactions – I don’t know how. The case is still being investigated by the Banks anti-fraud department.  Anyway, back to our brodas from West africa. I know that there are many, who frankly speaking are law abiding. I for one had a Nigerian mentor who had been in my country for over twenty years and I can attest to the fact that the spiritual guidance I received from him cannot be purchased by money.

Nevertheless, I cannot bring myself to understand what these “online widows” are always expecting to get from their “charitable ovatures.” I receive an average of two mails each week with someone from Nigeria either offering an irresistible business deal or some kind of charity. Normally, the storyline is the same. She is a wealthy childless widow who has been diaognised with some incurable disease and has a very short time to live. usually, she is willing to give her fortune for some “worthy cause” and assumes that she is dealing with an honest Christian who is out to reciprocate their philanthropic feelings.

The storyline sometimes alternates with a young orphan who is seeking to trandfer her parent’s wealth (in secret) to your country where she would invest as well as seek education. Usually, she is running away from her relatives who are out to ponder her late parents’ wealth and like the widow, she too trusts that you are the kind of person who could accord her the help she needs – usually with a promised financial benefit in the end.

Oh, and something else. There are these scams that congratulate you for winning a lottery and then proceed to send you a list of requirements to enable you claim your cash – usually in euros. The interesting part is that they make you look like an idiot, hoping you will believe that you won a lottery that you never even played. Arrrrggggg, who is fooling who.

One condition has to be met though, give your full details including your banking information. I have never ever given anything so i don’t know how these stories end.

What puzzles me is that these scums do not target the iliterate poor species of mankind. No, the targets, who more than often fall prey to the devious schemes are well schooled, computer literate individuals who have reasonable bank accounts.

Why then are they easily deceived? Greed and desire for more is our undoing.People bite more than they can chew. they fall prey because they are often willing to reap where they never sowed in the first place. With all their schooling, they are easily deceived. Indeed, it is the fool who says in his heart that there is no God. It is the lowering down of our moral standards and the refusal to recognise the pre-eminence of the deity that leads us to our ultimate slaughter house.

Godliness with contentment is of greater gain, at least my Bible tells me so.

I am still puzzled as to why the West african brothers continue to invest in this risky enterprise despite the fact that many scums are unearthed and the perpetrators arrested. Is it because there are still so many greedy gullible homo sapiens out there? Your bet is as good as mine.

See this article CNN article for a related story.

The things I like in a Woman and What I Wish They Knew

It is obviously no surprise to you that men and women are wired differently. We all recognize some of these differences, but others often hide in plain sight.

I love a woman who smiles because she makes it easier for me to approach her by conveying an attitude of confidence and playfulness. I understand that since many women are fearful of giving men the wrong impression they frequently guard their smiles. While that approach is safer, it inadvertently sends the wrong message. In addition, smiling is a sign of acceptance. Men often need some signal that it is safe to approach a woman before they’re willing to a risk introducing themselves .

I love a woman who takes her time to listen. Men rarely get listened to, at least not beyond a few minutes. Most of the time a few minutes is all men really need. But since most men hate to be rejected, it is easier for them to keep conversations superficial. They expect most women to want to talk, rather than be willing to listen. An irresistible woman is that kind that listens with her eyes (looks at me while I am talking) as well as her ears. Such women intrigue me. She is the kind that will eventually marry.

I also love a woman who dresses femininely. You know, like all men, I too am really visual. However, women often forget just how helpless guys are to what they see. The right visual stimulation can hypnotize a man. Women hear this and often become fearful. They mistakenly believe that men only notice perfect women. Forget perfect! If you really want to be noticed by men – at least by me – think colors, dresses and curves.

I basically like any woman who has that soft and cuddly quality. It isn’t that I don’t find women attractive in pants or when they are dressed comfortably. They are just not that easily noticeable. It doesn’t catch their eye like earrings or long hair does.

On the other hand, a powerfully dressed woman (think lots of red) makes most men think of sex, or not notice her at all. She may have a soft side, but if men can’t see it, they often don’t know it exists. The more feminine (softer) a woman dresses, the more men she will attract.

In addition to these, women need to understand a few more things about men – at least about me if the want to.

Most often I would rather feel unloved than inadequate and disrespected. I can handle a woman’s sense of lovelessness than disrespect. Sometimes I feel insecure. Just don’t make it obvious to me that I am not cutting it in life – not just at work, but at home. I feel good when a woman I love tells me how great I am. I think sometimes I just need some affirmation.

I also struggle with visual temptation. What I mean is that I instantly respond to visual images when it comes to women. And, this doesn’t just mean that I have wandering eyes. I am sure even the godliest husband cannot avoid noticing a woman who dresses in a way that draws attention to her body. Even if it is just a glance, these visual images sometimes reappear without any warning. I can of course choose whether to dwell on these images and memories or dismiss them, but I can’t control when these images appear. So normally I run away from them like a fast moving object. When I visit friends who have seductive literature I ask them to store away their magazines till I am gone. I also have a firewall installed in my computer and my friend keeps me accountable on matters of sexuality.

If you are my woman, you need to know that I care about your appearance. I don’t mean that I am clothed with a supermodel mentality. All I really want is to know that my super nyako (lady) is making an effort to take care of herself.

Finally, I want her to know how much I love her. Really, I am seldom sure of how to express this, and sometimes I am just shy and naïve but the truth is that in my heart, I wish she could know how much I love her.

Dear Women, Men are Human Beings

God made man good. Man is sinful. These two statements, though seemingly a paradox, are true of humanity, in which case “man” is used generically to refer to the entire human race. “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”

In my study of Bionomial nomenclature in form two Biology, I learnt that man is first an organism, just like plants, then, an animal, then, a mammal, then a primate, then a human being then finally either male or female. While I learned this in the same class as the one that taught me the Darwinian Theory – the very one that I have aptly rejected – I find this classification an apt analogy for understanding the place of man in relationships. Man and woman share most of everything in common apart from the very obvious and unavoidable (just like not all women resemble each other yet they all belong to the female fraternity) diversities that we see in the beauty of creation.

Thus there is on common denominator that defines man and woman: humanity. Both genders report to this inescapable reality, that they are first human beings before they are anything else. Being humans, man and woman share some common characteristics that depict the (Imago Dei) image of God in them. On the other hand there are some definitive features that separate female from male. To the best of my knowledge, and I stand to be corrected, the major difference is physiological. Most of the other supposed differences are culturally instigated, for example the big lie that men do not cry, or rather express their emotions. I say this last part with double certainty because my experience allows me to.

I humbly propose to the ladies that to understand men, they must first seek to understand humanity. In so doing will all cease to label and tag each other with endless name callings but rather will appreciate the limited diversity that abound in the human order. It is true that God made man, and that he made man good. But it is also true that that the hitherto good man is also sinful (Romans 6:23). These two statements, though seemingly a paradox, are true of humanity, in which case “man” is used generically in reference to the entire human race.

All men are potentially good men and consequently good husbands. But also all men have a potential for evil and poor relations just like some women are also potentially evil. The fall and its effect as well as our response to the same are what makes one good or bad (I say this in a specific sense, because I don’t want to open the debate on good and bad). At this point, I need to explain that my assumed readers are godly women or at least women working towards godliness.

What aspects of humanity does a woman need to understand in order to understand man? First, human beings are spiritual beings capable of both good and evil and consequently in dire need for God. Just like the woman, the man too needs God – there is no macho man. A godly woman can only blend with a godly man, there is not two way to it. How to ascertain that a man is godly is your assignment. It is only in relating with God that our evil tendencies are taken away as God fills the void within us that we quite often allow the enemy to fill.

Secondly, women must be contented with the fact that humanity is emotional. Like women, men too are fragile. A man’s strength is his weakness. Men have emotions that culture has taught them to hide. Men desire to be loved, respected, appreciated, and supported. As opposed to women, take time to trust an individual to whom he can confide in and share his feelings with. Thus an understanding woman would be the one who cares to listen to the man and appreciates his situation and not the one who scolds at him and makes him feel like a loser. May I add that most of the times, men have blotted egos. Now ego means edging God out and surely, redirecting a man to God decisively deals with this.

Thirdly, humanity is social. The cultural mandate leaves man with no option other than being relational. It is a concept that is deeply entrenched in the trinitarian theology where at first the triune Godhead is seen as cooperating in creation. The “let us” phrase particularly confirms this. In equal breath, men too are incurable social animals. They love to interact and socialize and detest any separation from the same. Yes, men too love to talk and to cuddle. We just don’t want to make it a public knowledge. Like lawyers, deep down we are very sociable people.

But we like guy things — we need “guy space” for stuff like cars, tools and watching kick-boxer action flicks. Sadly, women want to take over, to “female up” what used to be exclusive male territory with frilly drapes and paintings of flowers. In fact, they’re so committed to feminizing all the space around them that they quickly start forbidding us to have any guy stuff at all. So suddenly you find the bathroom buried in female products, your leather couch has been reupholstered in pastel paisley, and the spot where you kept your tools has blossomed into an indoor herb garden. I assure you these too can be detestable.

On a more personal note, women need to understand that men are clueless. I wouldn’t know what to do to you if you started crying all of a sudden. I am sure most men, unless they are counselors, might not know how to handle such delicate situations. Making a simple meal, or performing a simple first aid are things that essentially give me nightmares. I just don’t know what to do about stuff. The problem is that we don’t easily admit our fears. One time my uncle asked me to accompany him to a morgue to view the remains of my late aunt. My inner self was shaken but I displayed a manly stature from the outside and so obliged. Little did I know that my uncle too was fearful and I found this out when we got to our destination and he almost ran away had it not been that the attendant had locked the door behind us. I was very scared but never revealed it to date.

Men are also blunt and very liberal with their facts. If you think your dress is nice and you don’t want a negative answer then don’t ask. Just don’t ask me if you are fat or anything, unless you want the real answer – which in most cases is what you don’t want to hear. How else am I not suppose to be a liar and at the same time not hurt you?

We men are extremely independent by nature. We like to make our own decisions and run our lives by our own rules. We want to do what we want when we want. But when a woman enters the picture, all the choices a guy simply used to take for granted — going out for a beer with his buddies, buying a big screen TV, playing golf on Saturday afternoon — suddenly have to be cleared with her first. And her answer is almost always, “No — we’re a couple now” (translation: “We’re going to do things my way”). Almost overnight, we find ourselves trapped, doing what she wants to do, regardless of his own wants or desires.

While there could be some generalized patterns in men, every woman must guard against the fallacy of generalization. This is the synthesis: The Peril of Collective Judgment. Each Man is individually different and each case must be treated differently. I implore my dear sisters to start from a positive note: the Glass is often half full. Our starting point in every issue determines our conclusions. If because of a separate incidence or experience you carry the bad feeling to every other man you meet then you are possibly swallowing a wrong bait. Commonly misused words like “men are dogs” or “men are liars” are very misleading because indeed, not all men are.

Treat men like human beings because that is what they are and they will treat you like human beings too because that is what both of you are – any deviation leads to a deconstruction of the cultural mandate.

The Rise and Rise of the Yoweric Dynasty

Oh boy, so what is the use of the kingdoms - the Buganda and the Bunyoro?

M7 is the man… keep doing your thing, boy. No wonder you badly need Migingo Island, It seems that is the only remaining opportunity to provide gainful employment to Patience M7. State House advisor on Marine affairs.

Facebook Madness

<!– @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } A:link { so-language: zxx } –>

<!– @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } –>Facebook is a phenomenon. It has helped bring out the best and the worst in individuals. I visited a friend’s wall and couldn’t help laughing at what I saw. I am posting the unedited conversation as it appeared on the walls… I am still in tears as I copy paste the posts.

Simon has just realozed that the best place to fart is when you are crossing the road…..a car just takes it away from your behind and its like nothing happened… 13:35 – Comment – LikeUnlike – Show feedback (25)Hide feedback (25)

Marie Kirgotty at 13:39 10 March via Facebook Mobile

Hahahahahaha…ur weird!!:D

Simon Georges at 13:47 10 March via Facebook Mobile

It works. I’ve been doing tests today. No more holding farts you just run out to where there is traffic.

Daniel Munene Nyagah at 13:47 10 March via Facebook Mobile

Umewahi nyambiwa na msee ako mbele yako mkitoka kwa mat? It is so ugly….

Antony Nyonding’ Osanya at 13:51 on 10 March

Tell me some new, i do it on the stair case. So dont ask why i aint doin lift after lunch.

Samuel Ithiga at 13:55 10 March via Facebook Mobile

Gud thinkin simo coz i heard frm reliable sources that ur farts r venomous!

Simon Georges at 13:58 10 March via Facebook Mobile

Imagine the soohing effect on your butt when wind current from a passing vehicle carries away your fartxygen.

Antony Nyonding’ Osanya at 14:01 on 10 March

farticide!

Simon Georges at 14:02 10 March via Facebook Mobile

Nyagah na when the driver farts and you’ve sat behind him and only his window is open blowing the wind in your face. Eeeewww!
Osanya still crazy as the good old days in Willis cops come to inspect you and when they lift your blanket, they just leave you.
Mdada, accept the situation and be the bold guy.

Samuel Ithiga at 14:05 10 March via Facebook Mobile

Urs is more like fartioxide! its highly toxic, capable of knockin down 20 adult humans within minutes of exposure. victims first experience sever discomfort, the diaphram collapses then they suffer total lung failure, this is followd by paralysis n loss of consciousness! this fartoxide is unique 2 Gitu.

Antony Nyonding’ Osanya at 14:13 on 10 March

I am not in ur league, the cops aborted mission due to my nakedness.

Patric Sitati at 14:14 10 March via Facebook Mobile

There is no consumable material right here,luckily its not what you consume…..

Simon Georges at 14:14 10 March via Facebook Mobile

Im going to test it in the matatu im in and see if it works.

Kevin Kimani at 14:29 10 March via Facebook Mobile

Im a litle disapointd kwani hakuna maoni frm dem galz ama these mataz r only 4 dudes?

Kevin Kimani at 14:30 10 March via Facebook Mobile

No ofense MK.

Samuel Ithiga at 14:37 10 March via Facebook Mobile

Kevo the chics r dyin 2 contribute in this coz they alot more than we do, but they fear we wil notice dat!

Kevin Kimani at 14:40 10 March via Facebook Mobile

U guyz r a bunch o jinxed kwanza wewe G2,u tok of doin it kwa mat n voila…the air goes stale-na sio mimi! Nway i knw this guy who went 2 showa coz his cuzo frm shagz hd done it ndani ya blanketi!

Simon Georges at 14:41 10 March via Facebook Mobile

Kev, only rough drafts are as crude but i hope their comments are instigated.

Antony Nyonding’ Osanya at 14:42 on 10 March

heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Namki Wambui Webale at 14:43 10 March via Facebook Mobile

we cunt talk, we were busy laughin our heads off. U guyz r so real

Simon Georges at 14:47 10 March via Facebook Mobile

Haki nimefukuzwa kwa mat. Twasn’t me did not work and i had to alight before my stage. Yani but it was fun cause the guy next to me was stinking like if someone had poured alcohol kwa jacket so the mix was just evil.

Samuel Ithiga at 15:04 10 March via Facebook Mobile

Hehehehe! now go n try it wit u knw who!! hehehe! lol! yah go n be real wit…

Simon Georges at 15:11 10 March via Facebook Mobile

Kwenda huko buana. One has to take clever risks…

Antony Nyonding’ Osanya at 15:14 on 10 March

In that case, Namki, I gat the illest, shrekiest fart. swi!

Rosie Maison at 19:08 on 10 March

I KNOW NONE OF YOU GUYS!!na msinikaribie!! yaani this is what you guys talk about??

Rosie Maison at 19:08 on 10 March

eeewwww!i can smell the stink all the way here!!

Now this is what we call the Kenyan professionals… all the individuals who participated in this stream are highly qualified and competent graduates (or atleast in the making for some)… they will be parents soon and If I am not mistaken, they are supposed to be the leaders of today. They are all techno savvy, I must say…. and this is how they spend their leisure time. I won’t condemn them… they make me laugh and remember home. Simo keep bringing your madness to the world wide web and thank you for giving me reason to laugh. Bless you

Write a comment…

The Last Words of OULU GPO

<!– @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } –>

I just got this facebook message from somebody who knew GPO the slain Oscar Foundation official. Apparently we belonged to the same facebook group Bidii Afrika, though I have never met him and now will never meet him in person.

Fellow citizens,

Allow me to address you as follows;

That it is unfortunate that most of you are yet to understand the meaning of the words Government and Governance.

That many of you have decided to donate your noble thinking and reasoning to be informed by what you
hear not what you know.

Good people, it is the duty of the government through police force to protect lives and property; to do so to all citizens regardless of their economic, regional, religious or whatsoever affiliation.

It is the duty of the other hand of the Civil Societies to protect all citizens from the excesses of the government. When the government shows that it can not detect and prosecute crime, citizens should not run and blame the Civil Societies.

We pay taxes to the government of Kenya and not to Civil Societies or KNCHR. A government that can not protect her people has no mandate to be in power.

Let it be known that there is no instance in which KNCHR or any other Civil Society deterred the police or security agents from arresting and arraigning any suspected criminal in court.

There are no instances where any civil society has advocated that criminals be not punished. What they have said is that someone in power, some police somewhere should not take advantage of crime to kill and maim, to rob and extort, to intimidate and torture; that is what should be known to all of you in this forum.

KNCHR is not a Mungiki organization; it serves the interest of all Kenyans. It is time that we changed our shallow analysis and quick emotional expressions on issues of generational and national significance. The police have heavily invested in Media Strategy whereby they can afford public support as they advance in impunity. Arresting people, extorting them and killing them is not and will never be the primary terms of reference of the police force and when they involve themselves in such offence, it would be in the interest of the public to see beyond a mere inconveniency in transport sector that may after all turn out to be stage managed by the same police force and government.

We need to look beyond what is presented to us; why don’t we wonder that the anti Prof. Alston demonstrations across the country were not
licensed yet they went on undisrupted? Because the govt. wanted to buy your support; and indeed it got it.

The police should tell us of the number of arrests and prosecution that they will make out of today’s mayhem. After all, we employ police to protect us not to complain of an outlawed group. They should therefore show us the efforts they are undertaking to protect us, not pointing fingers and showering blames.

So be informed and transform your thoughts and approach to isuues.

OULU
GPO