“Ambassador Muhindi Has Prerogative Powers”..Says Chief Mlambaji Odede.

Posted on June 30, 2010. Filed under: Uncategorized |

The Ambassador is free to wear what she wants and attend whatever events n functions she chooses to, as that is her prerogative and is NOT included in her job description methinx, all this nonesense that she has to attend Kenyan events not to mention we have like 20 different events every weekend, si, no sooner she starts attending them shall we start classifying her either as a Tribalist or a Feminist or a Womanist or a Racist depending on what she chooses to attend???? So tuacheni hizi ngurumo za chura and find better things to do with our time like photographing butterflies, watching grass grow or watching paint dry,

Butdoisay comment>Where are the other WALAMBAJIS?…so far ni wawili tu wameongea…Beryl na Odede? At least mlambaji senior ana andika!!!



Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

One Response to ““Ambassador Muhindi Has Prerogative Powers”..Says Chief Mlambaji Odede.”

RSS Feed for BUTDOISAY? Comments RSS Feed

I commented earlier on the Purity-Beryl debate on KSB, but the KSB moderator edited it with these remarks: Naturally, your mail has been edited because I am legally responsible for your dirty remarks. If you have stronger balls, use yr ID then throw abuses because then, you will personally take responsibility. As long as you cannot do so, you will not name names and hurl matusi here.

To set the record straight, my comments then were nowhere near the tripe being published as “free speech” on KSB. My query was to whether the KSB moderator was a kitenge expert or wearer of kitenges as to determine his expertise on the subject (Feel free to edit this comment too). Obviously that remark hit a raw nerve with the moderator and censorship was a fact. Would changing my handle to John or Peter be indicative of personally taking responsibility and therefore giving me the go-ahead to hurl matusi to my heart’s desire? But the discrepancy in this mode of reasoning only re-enforces the notion that apparently hurling matusi at others is fine as long as the KSB moderator is not the target. Why then has the moderator not edited Caroline or Msema ukweli comments, even the rest that are virtually tearing each other to bits?

I have to commend Tony Odera aka Ean Woud Luo since he is the only person urging the rest to be civil and seek a better forum to iron out their personal differences. For that he has been heavily punished with insults. For what it’s worth, Tony displays the kind of class lacking in the majority of Kenyan-Stockholmers by refraining to respond in kind. Matusi is matusi whether directed to the moderator or any other person regardless of what handle is used and by whom. If the moderator is and was genuine in his opposition to matusi he would have definitely have acted by now. The moderator may retreat and deny responsibility with justifications of allowing free speech or claim it to be a result of allowing comments on KSB. However it is certainly very evident that extreme bigotry is rife on KSB and its cousin hypocrisy follows close behind.

Then of course one begins to reflect on the situation that has arisen as a result of this free for all. The moderators appeal to commentators to stick to facts, raise the debate level, remain sober and exploit the space at KSB to positively advance the interest of Kenyans in Stockholm comes at a time when the debate turned septic. Irreparable damage had been done and the fire brigade is being called out when the house has burned down to ashes. The timing of this appeal is debatable and it’s sincerity questionable. Funny though, I thought the piece was all about the Kenyan Ambassador being sidelined at Princess Victoria’s wedding. It has since been established that the article was about Purity, and more so to ridicule her, but then why did the moderator allow the vicious attacks on Beryl to continue unabated? Is this a covert attempt at settling scores with Beryl by giving Kenyans an opportunity to nail her to the cross? Could it be a hidden attempt at returning censorship at KSB by first allowing a free for all, then using that as basis for the return to the undemocratic modus operandi of the days of old?

Or maybe I am just slow-witted and don’t get it? Is it all one big misunderstanding?

Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: