Thinking Kenyan

Kenyan Forum at Skyscrapercity

2009-07-18T11:09:00.002+07:00

Skyscrapercity is one of the biggest forum when it comes to Pictures of Skylines in the world.It has pictures of almost every city in the world.Kenya recently got its own forum at Skyscrapercity.There are tons of pictures of Nairobi,Thika, Nakuru,Eldoret Kisumu ,Mombasa and many other towns in Kenya.I doubt there is any other website with such an impressive collection of pictures of various parts of Kenya as Skyscrapercity.The kenyan posters in the forum are an active bunch.

So why don't you take a look and hopefully become a member and join the growing number of kenyan posters in the Kenyan Forum at Skyscrapercity.

Kenyan Forum at Skyscrapercity

A Great Article about Nairobi

2009-06-07T11:36:00.005+07:00

A few times you come across travel stories of your country that make you smile and deeply patriotic.This is one of them.Taken from this blog ADAM LEAVES THE NEST
Adam chronicles his experience in Nairobi,Kenya.

"Awolio eoŋ! I am lost! Life was busy: finishing up collaborations with Term One’s focal schools, writing a grant for US AID Small Project Assistance (accepted!), co-facilitating Peace Corps Life Skills workshops, attending my mid-service conference, and then . . .

“Obi!” The words became concrete as I stirred to life, my body contorted in the uncomfortable “luxury” chair that bound me for fourteen hours, save for passing through customs and waking to find the bus driver asleep at the wheel of our cruiser, in the middle of a sorghum field. “Nairobi. Hapa! Nairobi,” the conductor shouted like an alarm clock.

I quickly found my feet and struggled to unlock my bursting backpack from the overhead rack where I chained it. One cannot be too careful with a suitcase of clothes worth approximately $3000 (all secondhand, of course). Stepping out onto the sidewalk, I turned in a circle to gain my first vision of Nairobi. It looked a lot like Kampala: stucco shops that reach two or three floors max. Immediately, I felt deflated with the familiarity surrounding me; I booked a week in Kenya’s capital city for its reputation: “Manhattan of East Africa.” True, a Eurocentric notion forced upon an African metropolis but I needed a drastic holiday from the bush: a city with substance and order. My shoulders slumped under the weight of my backpack and the defeat of failed expectation. Then, I turned westward.
Soaring up from the usual African shops were crystal skyscrapers. Loads of them; well, at least enough to make a proper skyline. Like a moth drawn to a flame, I started walking towards the city centre, humming “Wonderful Wizard of Oz” the entire way. I crossed River Road, a shady thoroughfare in the old part of the city, headed down Latema until I hit Moi Avenue. I could feel the electricity of the city nearing as I turned left and joined the rapid current of urban dwellers on their morning commute. For a moment, I thought myself in an American city, only with a significantly increased Black population. I was immediately blissful.

There were no greetings, no shouts of muzungu, no beggars on the street, no motorcycles harassing me with “you sit, we go.” Only a crowd of people, individuals turning off sporadically as their journeys differed from the majority. Not paying attention, I collided with a man who stopped suddenly in the middle of the block. He turned around and immediately saw my confusion, “Bus stop.” I smiled, trying to seem like bus stops were a part of my everyday life.

I quickly apologized and continued down the street to the intersection with Mama Ngina. As the first and most exciting stop in Nairobi neared, my blood quickened and my eyes searched the storefronts for a sign. Halfway down the block I turned around to make sure I hadn’t already passed it when a door swung open and released the aroma of freshly ground coffee beans: Nairobi Java House.

I caught the door before it could close and walked in to find a proper coffee shop with café tables and fashion forward bohemians sitting next to businessmen reading the daily news. I ignored feeling awkward in my travel clothes with a huge backpack; instead, I grabbed the last available table. Within five seconds a barista approached, “Morning, something to drink? Maybe a bite to eat?” I quickly ordered a regular coffee, neither cream nor sugar, and a healthy stack of pancakes, already tasting a little slice of heaven. After taking my order the barista turned to walk to the service station but doubled back, “Where are you from?”

“Oh. I’m American but I stay in Uganda,” I answered.

“Really? My mother is from Tororo.”

“Cuti? Ijeni ijo Ateso? Really? You know Ateso?” Automatically, I began speaking Ateso. Even on holiday from my village, I couldn’t help but grasp onto all ties to my African life.

“Eebo. Ai bo iboiei ijo? Yes. Where to do you stay?”

“Buka ŋaren na Soroti. Ejai ocaalo. I’m from near Soroti. It’s in the village.”

“Wonderful! You are a true Itesot, then. I’ll be right back with your coffee. I’m sure you’re looking forward to it. Not a lot of coffee in the village.”

“You have no idea,” I smiled and rubbed my hands together as I looked around at the red wine walls, the cedar wood countertop, people rushing to the register leaving moments later with a cup of energy in hand. I closed my eyes and listened to the fuzzy chatter of coffee beans grinding, steam machines, conversations in English, Swahili and Luo. City living, indeed.

* * *

“Morning, Adam. Going out for the day?” Angela, at the hotel’s front desk, asked as I walked towards the main entrance.

“Mmhmm. I think a little exploration is necessary,” I smiled back as I plugged in my earbuds and pressed the play button on my Ipod, feeling the total invisibility surging forth from the street.

“I can call a taxi for you it you want—“ she began.

“No need. I’ll take the bus.”

“Oh, my. Okay,” she said in disbelief.

I stood at the corner bus stop for ten minutes before my bus came. No. 24 pulled up to the curb and barely stopped as I jumped on and took a seat next to an older gentleman reading Barack Obama’s Dreams of my Father. I giggled to myself and took out my copy of the same book, a last minute decision at the Peace Corps library the day I left for my trip.

“Good read?” I asked the man as I showed him my copy.

“Yeah. Loads better than the rubbish he wrote in his second book, The Audacity of Hope. You can tell which he wrote while a politician.”

“I won’t bother with the sequel, then. I haven’t started this yet.”

“Well, a good place to read it. A whole section of the book takes place in this very city,” the man said as he spread his hands to the window’s view of the cityscape in the distance. “I’d ask if you were on your way home to Karen but white people in Nairobi don’t often take the bus.” Karen is a neighborhood within greater Nairobi that houses most of the white Kenyans who decided to stay after independence, named after Out of Africa’s author Karen Blixen. “Which begs the question, Where are you from?”

“I’m American but I currently live in NE Uganda with the Iteso people,” I gave the standard response even though most don’t have any knowledge of the Iteso people, a tiny population compared to Luo or Kikuyu.

The man digested my response with a furrowed brow and made his next question, “Did you vote in November?”

“By way of post,” I answered.

“I trust by your choice of reading that you made a smart decision. Where are you off to today?”

Just as I was about to answer, the conductor shouted the stop for Hardy, which was my destination. I stood up and quickly answered as I climbed down the stairs, “I’m going to kiss a giraffe. Doing something memorable for my 25th birthday.”

“Well, just remember to wash your face. Happy Birthday,” the elderly man waved from the window as the bus pulled away. “Enjoy the city.”

“I plan to.”

* * *
“So, you been to Masaai Mara?” Andy, my guide for the afternoon, asked as we walked to the car that would take us through Nairobi National Park.

“No. I’m not much of a nature person.” As soon as the words slipped out of my mouth, I felt their dishonesty. Now a year into village life, nature wasn’t as scary as I once thought, just not my cup of coffee. “I thought if I were to go on safari, it would be within the confines of a city.”

“Well, good choice, then. You can see the skyline of Nairobi in the distance. Most strange thing you’ll ever see. Animals running around with skyscrapers in the background. Crazy sight, indeed. You . . .” And so it went for the next five hours. Andy loves to talk about any subject. I learned his mother was from Seychelles and his father was from Uganda but he grew up in Mombasa, hunting warthogs in his boyhood.

Arriving at the vehicle, I laughed at the hybrid before us. Seeing my response, Andy harped in, “Well, as a city person, I thought you’d prefer the greenest vehicle we have. She runs like a bull, swear my life on it.”

“It is perfect. I guess green would do me well. I burn my trash in a rubbish pit. Not sure how eco-friendly that may be. This may forgive some of my Earthly sins. Off we go, then.”

“Damn lions. Making their kill before we arrive. Wish ‘em to hell, I do,” Andy swore as we finished hour four of our adventure. I lost interest after the third hour but Andy was hell-bent on finding a cat. So hell-bent that he off-roaded after passing Leopard Cliff, voyaging through mud for thirty minutes before we met with a buffalo. “This isn’t good. Let me see if I can turn around.”

“Really? The thing can’t be scared off?” I asked quietly.

“Nah, it’ll charge. Worst thing to do is piss it off. Shit, another behind us. What do we do now?”

“Wait it out? What more can we do?” I offered, the words of a true villager. Waiting for things or people is second nature now.

So, we sat in the middle of the park for an hour, waiting for something to scare the buffalos away. Being off the path, nothing came by to assist. Andy became anxious after thirty minutes and when the hour hit, he could take no more. He started to exit the car when the buffalo walked forward. I turned the key in the ignition hoping the sudden noise would startle the beast. Before I could jump the engine, the fan kicked on in a silent roar and the buffalos screeched and started running down the hill towards the ravine.

“Good thinking. Well, you may not have seen a lion, but you came face to face with a pissy buffalo. What now?”

“Take me back to the city. I’m not a nature person,” I said, this time seeing the truth in my words."

PS: All credits go to the original author of the article.Images have been replaced with these from Skyscraper to enhance the story.For the Original article in its original form.Check it out here

Wish we had more positive stories like this one, about Africa.

Why Atheists seem to lose most debates with Theists Philosphers

2009-06-06T01:46:00.002+07:00

There have been numerous debates between Atheists and Christian Theists regarding various topics such as,"Does God exist","Can We be Moral Without God and The Problem of Evil.
Anyone who is unbiased will without doubt agree that Theists Philosophers seem to come out on top of most debates.

The most notable Christian Philosopher who most people will agree has never lost a debate is William Lane Craig.Craig has many debates.(over 40) during his 20 years career in apologetics.

If you ask me why most Atheists who have debated William Lane Craig have lost:

1.Presenting invalid arguments
2.Lack of proper rebuttals to Craig's argument.

Presenting Invalid/unsound Arguments

This is the most common mistake atheist philosophers make.It is rather shocking that people who teach logic would commit obvious mistakes in their argumentation.Take for instance John Shook (who is a philosopher) debated William Lane Craig.Frankly he has to be the worst of all Craig's opponents.They debated Naturalism/Theism.

John Shook after being pressed by Craig to present an argument for naturalism,goes ahead and presents this:

1.Nature Exists
2.We don't have evidence for the supernatural
3.Conclusion:Therefore Naturalism is true.

You are left in awe at this kind of amature mistake.The conlcusion does not follow at all.
The theme is prevalent in most of Craig's oppenents.

Craig can simply win most of these debates by default,sincfe the Atheist usually present unsound arguments.

Lack Of Proper Rebuttals

Craig has been presenting the same 5 arguments for Theism for 20 years.And yet all his opponents fail to present convincing rebuttals to his arguments.

A classic example is Craig's recent debate with Christopher Hitchens.Hitchens is used to his British rhetoric.And he thought that was enough to win debates.He had no coherent argument or rebuttal for any of craigs arguments.It was like he came to his senses too late."
Ohh,you mean i really have to present an argument in these debates instead of my usuall jabs at religion and rhetoric about imaginary gods?"

In my opinion,the best Atheist debators who really challenged Craig are: Walter Amstrong Sinnot and bradley.(all on the problem of evil).These were intellectual stimulating debates.

The problem is that,most Atheists prop themselves in high stools and think that Atheism is a given.That it should be obvious to people that Atheisim is true.but when put on the spotlight,most of these Atheist philosophers cannot defend their positions.John Shook was unabel to present a sound argument for naturalism,Luois anthony was unable to present a coherent atheistic ethical system with her debate with Craig on Morality,Hitchens was just a total mess.

Perhaps we should be listening to Theist vs Theist debates.Such as Wes Morristons Vs William Lane Craig on the Kalam Cosmoligcal Argument.Which was a very stimulating debate by the way.Or maybe William Lane Craig vs Richard Swirnburne on either the nature of God(Swirnburne holds the poistion that God can be contigent) or a debate on Moral ontology(Richard Swirnburne holds the view that Morality can exist outside of God.)

Or is there an Atheist Philospher who can fair better than the previous predecesors?We can just wait and see.

William Lane Craig and Me Dialogue on Divine Simplicity

2009-06-02T14:57:00.002+07:00

So I'm proud to announce that this weeks question of the week at reasonable faith,i.e William Lane Craig's website, is mine.I mailed in the question a couple of weeks ago.For those who do not know,William Lane Craig is a leading Christian Philosopher and Biblical Scholar.He has written many books and articles and held many debates and conferences with Atheists all over the world.

This was my question:

Hello Dr. Craig.

Thank you very much for your enlightening work in Philosophy of religion. I am writing all the way from Malaysia! so you know your work has touched a lot of people globally.

I am a student in Computer science just reading up on Christian Apologetics. My question regards the doctrine of Divine Simplicity. I have not yet read any articles that you have written about Divine simplicity so i am not aware of your stand on this doctrine.

Someone however does quote you and JP Moreland as basically being opposed to the doctrine:

The doctrine [divine simplicity] is open, moreover, to powerful objections. For example, to say that God does not have distinct properties seems patently false: omnipotence is not the same property as goodness, for a being may have one and not the other.

My questions therefore are:

1. Are you for or against DS?

2. Would it be correct to assert that your understanding of the doctrine of divine simplicity as characterized by the above given quote (if indeed its yours) is wrong given that Nicholas Wolterstorff Noah Porter Professor Emeritus of Philosophical Theology, and Fellow of Berkeley College at Yale University, thinks that medieval Christian thinkers like St. Aquinas conceive of predication in terms of subjects possessing constituents. Whereas contemporary philosophers think of predication in terms of subjects exemplifying properties.

This makes all the difference on someone's view of DS.

Instead of God merely exemplifying eg Omnipotence, we can say that Omnipotence is a metaphysical constituent of God. And therefore it is not distinct from God. The same applies to Omnibenevolence. Instead of God just simply exemplifying goodness, we can say that goodness is part of God's nature, and thus not distinct from him.

Can't we then be charged with reducing God to an abstract property? I believe not. Since we have clearly indicated that we are talking of God's-goodness, which is a metaphysical constituent of God. If God's goodness is part of god's nature, then god's nature is surely identical or equal to God, God's-nature is just the same as God.

An objection can be raised that, We do know that there is a conceptual difference between God's nature and eg God's justice. Since God's nature is that which makes him God, and God's justice is that which makes him just. Therefore this seems to refute the doctrine of DS.

To me, this does not seem to defeat DS since DS does not claim that God's properties are conceptually similar, rather they are metaphysically similar.i.e the claim that God is identical with His nature becomes that God is identical with that constituent which makes him divine, i.e with his divine-making constituent. And the claim that God is identical with his Justice will amount to the claim that God is identical with that constituent that makes him just (just-making constituent).

I know this topic can get rather long, and i apologise for writing such a long post. I would love to hear your view on the issues i have raised.

Ernest

Dr.Craig's Response:

Dr. Craig responds:

Thank you, Ernest, for such a stimulating and profound question concerning divine simplicity! I've addressed this doctrine briefly in my second chapter on "The Coherence of Theism" in my and J. P. Moreland's book Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (IVP, 2003). The passage you cite appears on p. 524.

As I explain there, the classic doctrine of divine simplicity holds that God is an absolutely undifferentiated unity Who has no distinct attributes, stands in no real relations, Whose essence is not distinct from His existence, and Who just is the pure act of being subsisting. As such, the doctrine of divine simplicity is one that has no biblical support at all and, in my opinion, has no good philosophical arguments in its favor. Moreover, it faces very formidable objections. So in answer to your first question, I do reject the traditional doctrine that God is absolutely simple.

Now as for your second question, I assume that you're referring to Nicholas Wolterstorff's very interesting article "Divine Simplicity," in Philosophical Perspectives 5: Philosophy of Religion (Atascadero, Calif.: Ridgeview Publishing, 1991), pp. 531-52. There Wolterstorff argues that the doctrine of divine simplicity has been misconstrued by moderns because we fail to understand the medieval metaphysical framework of that doctrine. The problem, he argues, is that we moderns work with a "relation ontology," according to which a thing's nature or essence is a sort of abstract object to which the thing stands in a relation of exemplification. For example, a cat is thought to exemplify the property being feline, which is an abstract entity to which the cat is related. But medieval thinkers were working with a "constituent ontology," according to which natures were actual constituents of things. In fact, an individual nature was more like a concrete object than an abstract object. Thus, Plato's humanity was not, in this sense, the same as Aristotle's humanity; each had his own individual human nature which was individuated by the matter out of which each man was composed. (I think Wolterstorff seriously downplays the extent to which the medievals also recognized a common nature shared by all things of a certain kind, but let that pass.) Now for entities which are immaterial, like angels, for example, there is no matter to individuate their natures. So each one just is its nature. Each angel is therefore literally one of a kind! Moreover, created things have in addition to their natures certain additional properties, which are called accidents, for example, being brown, being intelligent, being good, and so on.

Now in the case of God, God is immaterial, so He just is His nature. Moreover, the claim of the doctrine of divine simplicity is that God has no accidents; He has only His essence. Finally, in the case of God alone, His nature involves existence. He exists by His very nature. So understood, the doctrine of divine simplicity does not commit one to the absurd notion that God is a property and, hence, an abstract object, as modern critics of the doctrine have sometimes alleged.

Wolterstorff's corrective of the modern reading of divine simplicity is welcome. Certainly medievals would not have thought of God's identity with His nature as His being an abtract object. But this mistaken critique is not the one I offer in Philosophical Foundations.

Rather Wolterstorff has really watered down the classic doctrine of divine simplicity. On his explication God could have a very complex nature and yet count as a simple being. The traditional doctrine is much more radical. It makes four identity claims:

i. God is not distinct from His nature.
ii. God's properties are not distinct from one another.
iii. God's nature is not distinct from His existence.
iv. God has no properties distinct from His nature.

Claim (i) is not unique to God. Angels, too, are identical with their natures. So this claim is not problematic when understood in the medieval metaphysical framework.

Claim (ii) remains problematic, however. Existence is part of God's nature. But existence is not the same property as, say, omnipotence, for plenty of things have existence but not omnipotence. It remains very obscure, therefore, how God's nature or essence can be simple and all His properties identical.

Claim (iii) is misrepresented by Wolterstorff, I believe. His is what Thomistic scholars call an "essentialist" reading of Thomas Aquinas' doctrine: Existence is a property that is included in the divine essence. But many Thomists insist that the correct reading of Thomas is an "existentialist" one: existence is not a property at all, but is the act of being which instantiates an essence. Everything other than God is composed of an essence to which an act of being is conjoined to make it exist as a concrete particular thing. But in a sense, God has no essence on this view, rather He just is the pure act of being unconstrained by any essence. He is, as Thomas says, the pure act of being subsisting. The problem is, this doctrine is just unintelligible.

Finally, claim (iv) runs into the severe problem that God does seem to have accidental properties in addition to His essential ones. For example, in the actual world, He knows, loves, and wills certain things which He would not know, will, or love had He decided to create a different universe or no universe at all. On the doctrine of divine simplicity God is absolutely similar in all possible worlds; but then it becomes inexplicable why those worlds vary if in every one God knows, loves, and wills the same things.

This is not to say that the doctrine of divine simplicity is wholly bereft of value. On the contrary, I have elsewhere defended the view that God's cognition is simple. But I do think that the full-blown doctrine in all its glory is philosophically and theologically unacceptable.

Boston Lose to Orlando and get eliminated.

2009-05-18T15:53:00.003+07:00

It was a painful game to watch.Orlando Vs Boston game 7 at the TD banknorth.In the First Quarter,Orlando were up by 10 points.With 4 out 4 shooting from the 3-point line.I squirmed every time i saw Hedo or Alston rise to shoot a 3-point.It ws almost always,a swish.

Boston tried to come back,but it was Orlando's night.Everything was going in.At the end Boston lost 101-82.A decisive 19 point win.

As for me,I am done watching the playoffs.My team is out and its not worth it anymore.

I am now rooting for Denver.I hate the Cavaliers,and I hope they get bundled out somewhere along the way.

Next year,Boston will be a better team with KG and Leon Powe back.And hopefully a new fresh power forward and point guard.Please Doc rivers,get rid of Stephon Marbury and Mikki Moore.

Boston win Game 5 to go up 3-2

2009-05-13T09:41:00.003+07:00

It was one of the best comeback in the series.At one point Boston trailed 14 points at the end of the third quarter and the only person who was scoring was veteran Paul Pierce who finished with 19 points.

With 5 minutes to go Orlando were still up 11 points.But all of a sudden the tide started changing and Boston made an 11-2 run.Ray Allen who had a cold night made a 3 pointer with less than 2 minutes left to give the Boston Celtics the lead.Orlando could not Capitalize on 3 open 3 point shots.They tried to foul Boston players to stop the clock,but Paul pierce,Eddie House and Big baby Glen davis sunk all the free throws to give Boston a 92-88 win.

Now Celtics lead the series 3-2 heading back to orlando for Game 6 on Thursday night.Its a do or die game for Magic since if they lose,they are knocked out of the series.

Meanwhile,several Orlando Magic fans have been crying foul after the game 4 loss in Orlando.Some bloggers insist that the NBA corporate would want a Boston/Caveliers Eastern Conference final.Game 5 also had its share of conterversial calls.One being what looked an airball shot by Rondo which was ruled to have hit the rim giving Celtics possesion at the closing seconds of the game.Another call is the ball tussle with Big baby glen davis with Rashard Lewis.The Magic team wanted it to be called a jump ball,but instead it ended up being a foul for Davis who sunk the two winning free throws.

Game 6 is on Thursday night 8 pm at the Amway arena in Orlando,Florida.

Watch Game Highlights here

Boston Sinks Orlando Magic in Game 4.

2009-05-11T16:45:00.002+07:00

So if you are a fan of basketball then you probably have been watching tthe NBA playoffs which are on the second round.Yesterday night Boston were hosted by Orlando down in Orlando, Florida for game 4.Orlando were leading 2-1 in the series and this was a must win for Boston.

Boston played well from the start and led most of the second half.But squandered a lead at the final seconds.Magic went up 94-93 with 16 seconds left.But surprise surprise! big baby davis hit the game winning jumper at the buzzer to give the celtics a 95-94 winner.The series now heads to Boston for Game 5 tied at 2-2.

Watch Highlights here

Uhuru Kenyatta in Yet Another Scandal.

2009-05-11T01:56:00.003+07:00

Finance minister Uhuru Kenyatta has found himself involved in yet another of the long list of scandals that now dog his trail.This time he is accused of duping parliament into withdrawing an extra 9.1 billion kshs from the treasury.In his defense Uhuru says that it was a typing error.The nation is still in shock and outraged by this brazen act of corruption at a time when millions are facing starvation in Kenya.

Read the whole story here.

C.S Lewis great quotes.

2009-05-02T14:31:00.002+07:00

One of the greatest christian minds of the 20th century,C.S lewis had some great quotes.These are my favorite:

1.A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.

2.If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

3.We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

4.There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, "All right, then, have it your way."

5.The real problem is not why some pious, humble, believing people suffer, but why some do not.

6.Telling us to obey instinct is like telling us to obey 'people.' People say different things: so do instincts. Our instincts are at war... Each instinct, if you listen to it, will claim to be gratified at the expense of the rest.

7.Some people feel guilty about their anxieties and regard them as a defect of faith but they are afflictions, not sins. Like all afflictions, they are, if we can so take them, our share in the passion of Christ.

8.Literature adds to reality, it does not simply describe it. It enriches the necessary competencies that daily life requires and provides; and in this respect, it irrigates the deserts that our lives have already become.

9.It may be hard for an egg to turn into a bird: it would be a jolly sight harder for it to learn to fly while remaining an egg. We are like eggs at present. And you cannot go on indefinitely being just an ordinary, decent egg. We must be hatched or go bad

What exactly is Malaysia's stand on Nigerian Students?

2009-04-06T02:05:00.001+07:00

In the early 2000's Malaysia opened up its education sector to international students especially African students.Universities and colleges launched aggressive marketing strategies to tap into middle class families in countries like Kenya,Botswana and Nigeria.The response was enormous.African student population skyrocketed in 2006,2007.Government sponsored students from Botswana came in hundreds every year,and soon also government sponsored Nigerian students were being admitted in Universities all over Malaysia.

Malaysia is reaping big from direct investment from the huge African student population in the country.Which is estimated to be well over 4000.Malaysia is attractive to international students mainly because of affordable higher quality education.The relaxed Visa laws(as compared to US or UK), make it a rising attraction to African students.Cheaper tuition fees and living expenses are also pulling factors.

But it seems colleges all across Malaysia are changing their attitudes towards admission of Nigeria students.Fewer and fewer Nigerian students are being admitted to colleges in Malaysia.In some cases some colleges are not admitting Nigerian students.

An official from one of the private universities in Malaysia(who refused to be named for job-security reasons),told me that his college is no longer admitting Nigerian students since last year.He cited indisciplne,low completion rates and security issues as the main reasons.He went as far as to say that the Malaysian government has directed a thorough vetting of all Nigerian students who seek to study in malaysia.He claimed that the colleges were even given figures of how many nigerian students they should admit,and the main point was to keep them at a minimal.

This is indeed a worrying trend.It is sad that many genuine Nigerian students who want to seek an education in Malaysia will not get the chance.In colleges like Nilai Internatinal University,INTI university and UCSI,the number of new Nigerian intakes have fallen to new lows,With some not admitting Nigerian students at all.Infact a university in Cheras near Kuala Lumpur is said to have sent over 150 Nigerians back home after a discplinary issue.

The perception among african students is that Nigerian students are an unwelcome lot in Malaysia.It would be inorder for the malaysian government to state its stand on the issue,so that it can be clear what is the future of many bright Nigerian students who wish to explore further studies in malaysia.

Kofi Annan Spills the Beans on Kibaki

2009-04-04T04:27:00.003+07:00

Finally Kofi Annan has spoken of what exactly transpired during the negotiations leading to the signing of the National Accord that saw ODM and PNU form a coalition government after the rigged election that led to violence last year.

The Standard has published the story on today's edition.Annan details how Kibaki was literally a slave to his PNU cronies who did not want anything to do with a coalition government.Kibaki had to be pushed to agree to create a prime ministers office by Kofi Annan.Ofcourse this is not news to Kenyans who know too well that PNU and Kibaki were not bothered by the death of Kenyans due to political instability.

Again,Annan mentions Kalonzo Musyoka's name as one of those people who were out to derail the negotiations.

Read the Whole Story Here

Raila Defends Grand Coalition

2009-03-29T03:55:00.002+07:00

Kenya's PM,Raila Odinga in a speech delivered yesterday defended the unholy alliance of ODM and PNU which was formed after violence rocked the country early 2008 after disputed elections.

Raila who had promised to sack Cabinet ministers and government officials who were involved in corruption left many Kenyans dissappointed with his about turn on his promise.

Raila's supporters will undoubtedly question his commitment to fighting graft.The PM who rode on the wave of a reformist with no tolerance to corruption is raising eye brows over his lack of concrete action to end corruption in Kenya.

His fellow cabinet ministers who have been implicated in corruption are sitting pretty in government.Under the national accord Raila can only spearhead the sacking of an ODM minister,therefore his hands seem to be tied.But Raila has the powerful option of ordering investigations of any minister he feels is inlvolved in corruption and recommend his termination of duties to the President.

Time will tell if Raila will keep his promise of announcing a major shake up in the cabinet to weed out corrupt individuals.

Kenya and Uganda row over migingo: Kenya Should deal firmly with Uganda.

2009-03-09T04:17:00.002+07:00

Uganda has flexed its muscles on the Migingo Island row by sending troops to the Island and ordering Kenyans to leave the island.Uganda has required all Kenyan residents to apply for a permit to be akllowd to stay or visit the island.

The island which is located on Lake victoria has been the center of conflict on borders at the lake.Uganda has laid claim to the Island despite all evidence showing that the island belongs to kenya.A look at the colonial maps and even current maps show the island lays atleast 1 km inside Kenya's borders.

While kenya has resorted to a slow laid back diplomatic resoltuion of the conflict,Uganda is using military power to take control of the island.

A delegation of Kenyan ministers are meant to travel to Uganda next week to discuss the conflict.

What annoys most Kenyans is,the slow pace at which the Kenyan government is taking to resolve the issue. The kenyan government is doing nothing to protect its citizens who are being harrased by Ugandan soldiers.

Uganda is firmly in control of the island,while the kenyan government is still "sending" a delegation to Kampala to discuss the crisis.Uganda knows very well the island belongs to Kenya,and the real issue is the fishing industry on lake victoria. many times Kenyan fishermen have crossed into Ugandan waters to fish.

This has annoyed Ugandans officials who feel like the island is a launching pad for illgeal fishing on Uganda's waters.Although this is the case,Uganda has no authority to grab/occupy Kenya's lands.

More and more Kenyas are feeling the need for Kenya to get involved militarily. It is an embarrasment for Kenya which is obviously superior militarily and economically than Uganda,to have its land forcefully occupied by a country which very much depends on Kenya's ports for its survival.

I think the time has come for the Kenyan government to send its military and if possible the navy to protect our land and citizens on Migingo.We have already lost 3 other islands (thanks to IDi Amin) to Uganda in the past. And Migingo will not be next in line.

Kenyans and the Facebook Phenomena

2009-03-01T07:24:00.002+07:00

There have been two technological revolutions in Kenya in the years 2007-2008.First, was the Safaricom WAP,which enabled any Kenyan who has a cellphone and WAP enabled phone access to internet anytime and at any location.
The internet was no longer a preserve for the upper middle class in Kenya.Any Kenyan regardless of class had a ready made connection to the WWW.

At the same time,Facebook,a social networking site was gathering pace.Recently,analysts have estimated that Facebook has over 175 million active users.Surpassing Myspace,friendster and other social networking sites.

It is not clear how many Kenyans are on Facebook,but are about 100,000 or more Kenyan users.
Most kenyans users on the site say they use facebook to keep in touch with their friends some ofn whom are Kenyans in the Diaspora.

One of my friends,Suzie(not real name),says," Facebook is the place to be.I chat with my sisters and brothers who are all in the USA daily on facebook,and it brings us much closer."

Suzie says she updates her photos almost every week,so as to keep her friends interested in her profile.

It is puzzling just how many Kenyans are addicted to Facebook.Some profiles status are updated almost every hour.This is possible partly because many young Kenyans are almost,always,connected to the internet using their WAP enabled phones.Business daily africa ran a story about how employers are now fearing that work hours are getting wasted on Facebook by their employees.Read the Story here.

Corporate companies have realised the huge potential in Facebook,and many have opened their own pages on Facebook.Capital fm,Business daily africa,are just some of the companies with pages on facebook.

For ordinary Kenyans,the anonymity may be one of the pulling factors.The ability to "meet" and socialise with new people without leaving your house is a pulling factor.

Not every Kenyan is a fan of Facebook though.One of my friends who is a harsh critic of facebook has this to say," Most people who spend their time on facbook are people who most likely have very low social skills in real life.I don't see the reason why someone should be making friends with people who you might never meet.Whats the point of me making friends with a girl from Cuba for example?"

The irony of the matter is,he also has a facebook acount!

In the meantime,more and more Kenyans are joining facebook,and making their networks one big global village.

Finally!

2009-02-19T04:56:00.002+07:00

Its been almost 3 months since i last blogged.And reasons are many,but the main one being,I have been quite busy with other things.But i am back.And i am going to post quite regularly.Everything from Philosophy of religion,to politics and News touching on Kenya and Africa.

Divine Simplicity - an Introduction

2008-11-06T00:48:00.001+07:00

introduction

One of the most difficult doctrines to understand and one that has continued to challenge theists and philosophers is ironically the doctrine of divine simplicity. Proposed by early christian thinkers like st. Thomas aquinas,st. Anselm and st. Augustine,the doctrine says that god is simple,with no components and he is identical with his attributes.

The doctrine has received criticism from both christian philosophers and atheists as an incoherent doctrine. The idea that god is the same thing as omnipotence,omniscience and omni benevolence has not gone down well with modern day christian philosophers. The strongest critic being well known christian philosopher Alvin plantinga.plantinga said the doctrine reduces god to a property.

Since God is identical with each of his properties and so by extension also each of his properties are identical with each other.

I must warn you guys that this topic is very complex and it involves a lot of philosophical terms. I am still trying to understand it fully and some of the solutions offered.

The doctrine can be represented by taking an example of one of God's properties,goodness:

1.God is good
2.God has a certain property called “goodness”
3.This goodness belongs to God
4.Therefore we can call it God's goodness.
5.God's goodness is identical to God.

The doctrine arose from the need of avoiding to think of God as dependent on his properties and also the need to think of God as not having components.(physical or essence components) if god had these properties contingently and separate from his nature,then it would imply that the combination of properties such as omnipotence,omniscience-benevolence made up God.

This would mean that God depended on these properties so as to be “god”.and to the early thinkers this would imply God is not a maximal being since he would depend on these properties for his essence or existence. And so another maximal being could be thought of,who did not depend on these properties but rather was identical to these(goodness,omnipotence-omniscience) properties themselves.

To get a clear picture think of a human being. A human being is made up of parts,the brain,heart and other vital organs. Without these organs a human would not function. So we can say a human is dependent on his parts. So if God was made up of omniscience,omni benevolence and omnipotence,he would then be dependent on these properties so as to exist,or so that he can have his nature.

But if God was identical to his properties,then he would not be dependent on anything.and thus maintain status of a maximal being. But this is where the problem starts.

key
G= God

op=omnipotence
os=omniscience
ob=omnibenevolence

G=op

G=os

G=ob

therefore

op=os=ob

If God is identical with all his properties,then all his properties are identical to each other God is a property a single property but properties don't create,they are not personal,in fact properties don't stand in any causal relationships. They are abstract. Just like the color yellow,or numbers. For example if God is goodness,then how can “goodness” create anything?if its just a property?if God is “just” or “merciful”,how can merciful do things like create,speak or do anything at all? this is clearly not the God of Christianity.

God is the personal creator and sustainer of every contingent being. No abstract object is a person or a causal agent. No abstract object can be omniscient, or indeed know anything at all! this is not the only coherence problem faced by divine simplicity. In the next thread i will post some of the other coherence problems. And finally the counterarguments to this criticisms. To be continued....

Euthyphro Dilemma revisted 2.

2008-10-12T21:52:00.002+07:00

Post Continued From Here

Deschain

So, Ernest seems to go along with the ideas expressed just above: by the fact that God is our Father, Creator, Sustainer, it follows that we ought to follow his commands and respect the laws that He lays down for us.

But, by the fact that God is our Father it doesn’t follow that we ought to do as he commands. By analogy, if a child’s parent (who is, in a perfectly analogical sense, the child’s Father, Creator, and Provider), commanded his daughter to go out to Central Avenue in Albany, NY and sell crack, the daughter would in no way be morally obligated to do so, just on the grounds that the command comes from her father.

A natural reply to this analogy would be that it fails because the girl’s father is a mere human being, whereas God is our Ultimate Author, the all-powerful being who is responsible for our existence. So, then, it is not God’s parental status, but more his omnipotence, that makes his dispositions unique such that they provide as an objective basis for moral conduct, when no other individual‘s desires, or set of desires, can.

Is there any reason to suppose that there is a relationship between moral obligation and how powerful a person is? There doesn’t seem to be any relation between these two things. In Wielenberg (2005), we imagine a contest between two people where the prize is omnipotence. The first competitor in this contest means to win his omnipotence and use it for the good of humanity. The second competitor plans to use his omnipotence for his own “selfish, nefarious purposes”. He “plans to slaughter most of humanity and force the rest to live in excrement pits where they will work themselves to death as his slaves and be subject to torture at his hand for his own amusement” (pg. 41-42). If the second competitor won this contest, and became all-powerful, would we have any moral obligation at all to make his desires come true? The answer is obviously no. We don’t have any obligation. So neither a person’s power or parental/creator status has any relation to what our moral obligations are.

So, it looks like there’s no bridge between “is” and “ought” for EDCT.

2. On God’s dispositions being necessarily fixed:

Originally Posted by “Ernest”

1.Conceptual Neccesity

Neccesarily God is Good.

Goodness being attributed to God can be thought of as a Propositional neccesity i.e Resulting from unpacking of a concept- the concept of God.By this I mean the very definition of God (in Christianity) is one who is all loving.eg If someone is a bachelor, for instance, then he is bound to be unmarried by conceptual necessity, because the meaning of the word "bachelor" determines that he is.therefore Good is part of the definiton of what God is.But this shiould not be confused as meaning that God is the same thing as goodness,but only part of the deifinition of What God is.

God is neccesarily Good

This can be thought of neccesity De Re i.e "of the thing".Where the neccesity holds true of the being who is infact God.And is the expression of one of his essential properties.A property without which,He could not exist.This De Re necessity ties goodness to the very existence of God.

Necessarily,God is essentially Good

For a being who was ultimately vulnerable to evil,sin or weakness in any possible circumstance,he would not be the greatest possible being.On the conception of deity,part of what it means to be God is having the property of goodness and to have it essentially,and not contingently.

Deschain:

You’ve got some things confused. Here, you’re trying to provide a reason for why God is necessarily good. But you have defined “good” as “in accord with God’s dispositions”. So the more relevant question is: Could God’s dispositions be different? If there is a possible world in which God’s dispositions are not the same as you imagine them to be, then it follows that what is right and what is wrong would be different. Since we’re all in agreement that any moral theory that entails this has been reduced to absurdity, it becomes necessary for you to show that God’s dispositions cannot be different. You haven’t really tried to show this.

The closest you’ve come to an argument of this sort is your ontological argument. God cannot be different because then He would not be the greatest conceivable being. But as I implied in an earlier post, this particular ontological argument uses the term “greatest” in (apparently) a very subjective way. How are you defining the word “greatest” in your argument, and how does it directly relate to and have consequences for what God’s dispositions could be? "Greatest conceivable being" from which person's perspective? Can you demonstrate, as a matter of fact, that differences in God’s dispositions would entail that He would not be the greatest conceivable being, in any sort of objective way that we would all have to agree with?

I think that you've been able to come up with a good answer to Euthyphro’s Dilemma, in that you have attempted to make the basis for moral facts both non-arbitrary and based on God’s commands/nature. You have the “right idea”, in other words, in terms of what you have to argue in order to make the Euthyphro argument go away. But, as far as the discussion has shown so far, it looks like EDCT fails for at least two reasons: (1) It fails to provide an adequate answer to the is-ought dilemma; and (2) It fails to show that God’s dispositions are necessarily the way that they are, and could not be different. The criticism expressed in (1) is an independent criticism apart from the Euthyphro Dilemma. The argument in (2) shows (at least, IMO) that the Euthyphro Dilemma is a continuing problem for your moral theory.

Euthyphro Dilemma revisited:

2008-10-12T21:36:00.004+07:00

Following my post about the Euthyphro Dilemma on my blog here and subsequent post at IIDB,There were several critiques of my post by a forum member AKA Deschain.Here is His analysis of what he called Ernest's Divine Command Theory.(lol)

He was responding to this:

Originally Posted by “Ernest”

I certainly did not chose horn number 2,i do think that there are reasons why God gives certrain moral commands,but it does not follow that this reasons are apart from God's nature.

As in,
1.God is Kind
2.God has a disposition against stealing
3.Because stealing causes losess to the victim,and its an act of cruelty
4.Cruelty is agaisnt God's nature of Kindness

If am correct,What Deschain and You have a contention with is that number 3 i.e reasons for stealing,would be independent of God's nature.God would need reasons indepedent of his nature to have moral commands.

But my position is,the reasons themselves are grounded in God's nature.as i have illustrated.

Then the question would be as Deschain pointed out,Would number 3 be evident enough i.e serve as a motivation by itself to humans without number 4?

Now at this juncture we have to discuss all the Atheistic/secular ethical moral systems.(which is a another discussion)

But if they all fail,then we have to move from 3 to 4,that it might not be self evident that Stealing is cruel without an Objective Moral standard,who is God.

Deschain:

1. On the Ernestombayo Divine Command Theory, actions that would normally be described as immoral can be considered objectively wrong because of certain dispositions that God has toward those acts. According to EDCT, it is not possible that God could have an alternative set of dispositions - i.e., God’s nature is strictly fixed and is as it is by necessity. As a result, it can never be the case that moral facts change; for example, it can never be the case that rape suddenly becomes morally permissible, or that charity becomes morally reprehensible, because God’s dispositions toward those acts can never change. The result of this is that, according to Ernest, we have an answer to Euthyphro’s Dilemma, which attempts to demonstrate that either: (1) morality is not founded on God; or (2) Morality is an arbitrary construct decreed by God. With EDCT, moral facts are not arbitrary because they are true by virtue of God’s unchanging dispositions toward morally-relevant actions. And with that, the dilemma seems to be answered.

Here’s why this doesn’t sound like a good theory to me: Why is it that God’s dispositions are sufficient to provide as a basis for moral facts, when no other individual’s desires (say, the dispositions of Wittgenstein, or Satan, or Whoopi Goldberg, or Boy George) are able to do so? What is it about God’s personal dispositions that provide us with an objective theory, when, according to Ernest's rejection of secularly-based ethical theories, using anyone else's dispositions as a basis for moral conduct leaves us with moral subjectivism?

Different believers that I’ve talked to have different perspectives on this. Some say that God’s dispositions are unique in that God is our Father, our Creator, and so we must do what he commands and desires of us. Others say that it is because God is all-powerful. Others say that it is because he is omniscient and therefore knows what is right and what is wrong, and so it is important that we follow him as our (much wiser) guide for moral behaviour. Ernest himself wrote that:

"From a Christian theological standpoint, if God has created us and sustains us in existence at every moment and so all good things of life come to us through his agency or permission, we have some obligation to please him and so conform to his commands and forbidding."

Continued on the next post.

Names of Politicians who played a role in the rigging of the elections.

2008-10-05T15:35:00.005+07:00

The standard's bold publication of the people who helped manipulate results and pushed for a Kibaki "declaration as winner" is not shocker to many kenyans who know these people very well and their greed for power.

The standard says ministers from PNU were instrumental in the riggin of the elections.Also 3 ministers piled pressure on ECK commisioner Kivuiti to release the doctored released which showed Kibaki had won the elections.

The standard names Uhuru Kenyatta,Martha Karua and Amos Kimunya as the ministers who pressured Kivuitu to release the figures.

Kalonzo Musyoka apparently had by this time struck a deal with PNU to be made VP after Kibaki's swearing in.His ODM-K counterpart Mutula Kilonzo,now the Nairobi Metroplitan Development Minister,was persistent in pressuring Kivuitu to release the disputed figures.

The standard failed to name the 2 former ministers who put pressure on the returning officer for the Langata constituency to announce Livondo the winner instead of Raila Odinga.

Read More here

Revealed:The Two Men Who Rigged Kenya's Elections

2008-10-05T15:20:00.003+07:00

The Daily Newspaper East african standard has broke out the story of how the Kenya elections were rigged,and who was involved.

It has emerged that the chief pointman at ECK for the PNU rigging machine was Mr Suleiman Chege,who helped and coordinated the rigging of the elections that led to the unprecedented violence never witnessed in Kenya before, that led to the deaths of more than 1000 Kenyans and displaced over 300,000 people.

The other person was the ECK IT manager Mr Mr Ayub Imbira.THe stadard says"Mr Suleiman Chege, who was deputy Commission Secretary in charge of administration during the polls, and Mr Ayub Imbira, the IT manager at the ECK, may have more to tell than Kivuitu.

"Even if they remove everybody and Chege remains, nothing will change at the ECK," a source said.

As the one in charge of administration, Chege was the one the returning officers answered to. Immediately after the elections, he was promoted to commission secretary.

It is not the first time Chege’s name has been sucked into election controversy.

The Standard on Sunday established that in 1992, after the first multi-party elections, retired President Moi was furious with Chege, whom he accused of manipulating and inflating figures in favour of Mr Kenneth Matiba, who came second in what turned out to be a strangely stiff contest between the two.

After the 1992 election, Moi tried to transfer Chege to the Ministry of Water as undersecretary, but he later left him alone

Imbira, on the other hand, was the one managing the register in the last election. The register itself had numerous faults, including ODM presidential candidate Raila’s Odinga’s name missing from the Lang’ata constituency register on voting day.

"Imbira was the only one who could insert or remove names from the computer as the IT manager," a source said."

Read HERE

Euthyphro Dilemma Part 2

2008-09-28T11:12:00.002+07:00

In my last post i wrote about the Euthyphro dilemma.Read about it here.
An objection of the Divine command theory(That which is moral is moral because it is commanded by God), is that moral truthts become arbitray.
An objection to this claim is that God is necessarily good, and that the source and standard of the Good is God’s very nature.This avoids the assertion that morality is arbtriray since morality can now be shown that its grounded in an objective moral standard which is God's very nature of goodness.

But an opponent of the Divine Command theory can ask."If God’s nature rejects the raping of little children, but it is not an arbitrary rejection (rejected for no reasons), then would this not mean that God’s nature is good in accordance with good reasons?"

Then can we not say that God's nature is neccesarily opposed to such acts as rape and murder because there are good reasons not to rape and murder?

So God's nature to call an act wrong or good,must be grounded in "good reasons".This implies that in a world where rape does not cause any suffering or injustice to the victim,then God would have no reason to call rape wrong.But someone wopul say,that,there is no possible world where rape does not cause suffering or injustice.Then wouldn't this still mean that God's nature of goodness is grounded in reasons.Making God's nature of goodness a slave to "reasons" for being good.

It seems clear that for God to escape the charge that morality is arbitrary i.e something IS just good,or something IS just bad,then it must be grounded in reasons.

The question becomes,would this reasons exists if God did not exist?Would we see reasons not to rape,if God did not exist?If the answer is yes,then it means that "reasons' not to rape and by extension,.morality exists outside of God.

What are the problems raised with this type of objection?from Christian Philoaspher's site,William Lane Craig, reasonable faithe he says.;

"The position is that God’s moral nature is the paradigm of goodness; what is good or bad is determined by conformity or lack thereof to His nature.First, we can give good reasons for why God commands what He does,eg rape ir wrong because it is injurious and unjust.But that doesn’t imply that there should be good reasons why love, kindness, and patience are virtues, and why greed, cruelty, and hate are vices apart from the nature of God.

Second, I think we should not confuse being ultimate with being arbitrary. If something serves as one’s explanatory ultimate, there can be no further explanation why that thing is as it is. But that doesn’t imply that it is arbitrary in the sense that it could have been otherwise and so just happens accidentally to be the way it is. God’s nature, like Plato’s Good, is ultimate, it is not arbitrary. Nor is taking God’s nature as paradigmatic of the Good arbitrary, for He is the greatest conceivable being and it is greater to be the paradigm of goodness than merely to exemplify it."

Craig sums it up nicely for this dilemma that has troubled philosphers for ages.

References:

Reasonable Faith - www.reasonablefaith.org - William Lane Craig.
Philosophical Logic - Sybil Wolfram
Euthyphro dilemma - Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

The Euthyphro dilemma

2008-09-22T17:27:00.005+07:00

Euthyphro Dilemma is found in plato's dialogue "Euthyphro".In montheism its simply asks "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"

1.What is commanded by God is moral because its moral in/by itself.

This implies that morality is independent of God and, indeed, that God is bound by morality just as his creatures are. God then becomes just a messenger for morality.

2.That which is moral is moral because it is commanded by God

This is commonly known as the Divine command theory.Which says that an act is obligatory if and only if, and because, it is commanded by God.

There are several objections raised against the divine command theory(DCT).

a)It implies that morality is arbitrary. If divine command theory is true, morality is based merely upon God's whim. Divine Command Theory, this objection runs, entails that if it is morally obligatory to do x then this is in virtue of God's commanding that we do x.

If God would have commanded us to rape,then it would have been moral good.

b)Secondly, it implies that calling God good makes no real sense,rather God is just being consistent with his nature.

Most theist will say that this nis a false dilemma,and DCT is obvioiusly true.Now what about the objections ?

a)It implies that morality is arbitrary. If divine command theory is true, morality is based merely upon God's whim. Divine Command Theory, this objection runs, entails that if it is morally obligatory to do x then this is in virtue of God's commanding that we do x.

If God would have commanded us to rape,then it would have been moral good.

1. Some theist agree with the point the critic is making but arguing that it is not a problem with the theory. God could have commanded us to commit murder, and then it would have been obligatory — but he didn't, so it isn't.But this is a potenital problem because it suggets that their is a possible world where God's commands on moral values are completely different.

2.A theist can say that God is necessarily good, and that the source and standard of the Good is God’s very nature.This avoids the assertion that morality is arbtriray since morality can now be shown that its grounded in an objective moral standard which is God's very nature of goodness.

to be continued....

Undercover Mosque returns

2008-09-10T20:18:00.002+07:00

UK's controversial documentary which aired last year called "Undercover Mosque " has returned with a sequel to the original documentary.The original caused a storm in UK with Muslims complaining that the channel portrayed Muslims in a bad light.The documentary had a reporter go undercover in leading UK mosques and shot footages of Muslim clerics teaching a radical kind of Islam which calls for death of non-Muslims,killings of homosexuals among other strict sharia law.

The Channel has followed up with a sequel entitled "Undercover mosque the return",where a female reporter goes undercover with a hidden camera to the mosques,where the Saudi version of Islam is taught in the womens side of the mosque.This version of Islam is called wahabism,which is a radical and extremist version of Islam which has drawn criticism from both Muslims,non-Muslims and the secular society for its calls of oppression towards women and non-Muslims.

watch the original here

Undercover Mosque

watch the sequel here

Undercover Mosque the return

Capital Fm opens new website as Kiss Fm continues to Sleep

2008-09-06T20:07:00.004+07:00

The second most popular FM station in Nairobi has just launched its new website.WWW.CAPITALFM.CO.KE

The new site looks really great,and it is essentially 4 websites in one.All with substantial good material.The news page has upto date news and is very well organized.

The radio site still is live on air,and this makes the thousands of kenyans in the diaspora feel much at home.

Meanwhile,the sleeping giant Kiss fm continues its 3 year slumber.Kiss fm was last streaming live in November 2005.In fact the website was down for a couple of months.And when it relaunched,it was a shoddily done site.

The so called countdown was never updated for months! Even the news stayed for over 4 months without being updated.The site has gone down again,and it is now"under construction" for the last 4 months or so!

Kiss fm,spend some money,and get a professional looking website.Pay for some bandwidth and get back to streaming.Your losing out on potential advertising money because your audience is only restricted to Kenya.

Otherwise Kudos Capital FM!

Nairobi: Demand for Commercial Property drives building boom in UpperHill

2008-08-30T21:28:00.003+07:00

If you have been out of Kenya for the last 10 years,you would not recognise upperhill Nairobi.10 years ago was a vastly empty,with only a few apartment buildings.

Upperhill is situated about 5 mins drive from the city center.Since 2002,demand for commercial property for rent and lack of space for expansion in the CBD has driven the growth of Upperhill into a sort of 'mini city" within Nairobi.

Coca Cola,GeoMaps,Blue Shield,NIC bank,Coopertaive Bank,Imperial Bank,the British council and a host of other companies have set up base in Upperhill.Upperhill is particularly attractive to investors because of its clos proximity to the city center and its serene environment.

Most of the parcels of Land in Upperhill are government owned.And about 30% are undeveloped.
The empty spaces that characterized Upperhill a few years ago are no more.Glass skyscrapers and fancy archicture dot the small but growing skyline of upperhill.Its almost as if its a competition.With buildings competing for the best and most innovative look.

What is surprising is that there are a few parcels of land left in this prime area.God only knows how much this parcels of land are worth now.But one thing is for sure,if there is a private land owner in this area,he's/she's a millionaire waiting to happen.Donald Trump should have a Trump Towers here!the tallest building in Nairobi(and East and Central africa),the Times Tower has 35 floors.A building taller than this would generate enough hype in the whole region.And there would be no better place to have it than the Upperhill area.

In the meantime,take a look at the fancy buildings dominating upperhill now.

Above is Imperial Bank,NIC Bank and CoopBank.

NOTE:for Potential investors to Nairobi or Kenya visit Kenya Investment Authority for more details on investment opportunities regulations and general information.

NEXT Post:Exploring the rising mall craze in Nairobi.