Don’t Underestimate Palin on Debates

Palin will be debating Biden soon, and a lot of Obama supporters are banking on the fact that her debate will be as disastrous as her interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric. However, as was seen at the Republican National Convention, when she’s had time to prepare and to memorize speeches, talking points, and one liners, the delivery is priceless and highly effective.

EVERYONE: expect the same type of performance at this debate as the GOP convention. When asked about Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Zimbabwe, whatever, Palin will have memorized a serious of talking points she will bring up (being confident that she won’t be challenged on them by her opponent) and she will deliver them perfectly. More importantly though, is that she will be equipped with a series of one liners and zingers that she will use to undermine her opponent. And this is where her success will come in.

Policy debate? Forget about it. As long as people’s expectations are low, as long as they believe she will fall completely flat on her face, she can only do better. And I think this is what the GOP is hoping for. Low expectations that will only be elevated by her performance with one liners that are memorable, “cute”, and catchy.

So don’t underestimate her. She is coming strong, and she is bring fire!

Comments Policy

So the comments policy section has been under construction for a while now. But I finally have the rules up. Here is the post within the comments policy:

I allow almost everything. As long as it’s clear, and well thought out, it’s fair game. I welcome dissenting thoughts and opinions, but no ad hominem attacks. Everything else is good to go. But with all that said,

  1. It’s my blog. I can change the rules as I see fit, and as I please, at any time.
  2. I welcome disagreements. Give a coherent thought, and we can civilly disagree.
  3. If you post an extremely stupid or ignorant comment, beware, it may be turned into a post, and you might look like an idiot.
  4. This blog is not a “let’s let Kagame and sympathizers spread their propaganda.” So don’t be surprised if your attempts and efforts to spread the Kagame propaganda are thwarted. Don’t worry, most of your comments will show up, however, some like in number 3, will be dedicated to their own posts, and decontructed, shredded to the nothingness and emptyness that they are.
  5. Enjoy yourself, share your thoughts and opinions. All are welcome. Happy blogging! )

Pierre Pean on Trial in France for Hate Speech on Rwanda

It’s been a while since I blogged anything on Rwanda or anything at all for that matter. I do have some posts in the works, some about the elections both in the USA as well as Rwanda. However, this headline today caught my attention that I had to immediately blog about.

Pierre Pean author of the book Noires Fureurs, Blancs Menteurs/”Black Furies White Liars” is on trail for “defamation and inciting racial hatred” within the same book. Apparently because he reported that Tutsi rebels had a hand in what happened in Rwanda in the 1990s, starting in 1990, through 1994, and in 1996-1998, then he is inciting hate and racism. And therefore, he is on trial to defend himself or to see himself persecuted for his writing.

The BBC reports that the lawsuit filed against him is by a French Rights group SOS Racisme and this case is also backed by the public persecutor. According to the same BBC article, the SOS Racisme president Dominique Sopo believes that “when you are aware what cliches can trigger in terms of killings, racism and confrontation, especially in that country, it seems to me that this particular issue greatly disturbs those who went through such drama and who prefer not to go through it again”.

Ok this is tricky. I am all for persecuting hate speech and crimes. And considering the frame of reference SOS Racisme is coming from, believing that Tutsis were victims of a genocide committed by Hutus and no context given of RPF tutsis who also committed crimes during the genocide period, then any speech to the contrary can be construed as hate speech, and in line with perpetuating hate and encouraging more hate crimes. However, we know that the story line we’ve heard so much is completely distorted. Therefore, SOS Racisme is misguided in trying to sue Pean.

Aside from the fact that the frame of reference they are approaching this from had been distorted, the idea of suing/silencing Pean can also be considered a form of thought policing or censoring. However there is a thin line between calling out hate speech and silencing. Although I haven’t read the book, there is a certain presumptuousness from Pean as he describes Rwandan culture as one of “deception” and as a white man, this can definitely be construed as prejudiced. However, again, I have not read the book, therefore, I do not know what the context of the comments are.

What is most baffling for me, is how writing a book can be taken to court for “hate” while attacking a relatively peaceful country is not, and the assassination of two presidents is swept under the rug. What is this? What crime is less hateful than attacking a country and killing its citizens? Even to establish “democracy.” If we want to prevent these things from happening again in the future, shouldn’t we get to the root of all things? How did it happen? Why was Rwanda invaded and by whom in 1990? Why were peace and power sharing agreements disregarded and broken? Why did the U.N. escort RPF soldiers and arms into Kigali clandestinely if they were non-partisan, helping the RPF secure the country with violence in 1994? Why hasn’t the assassination of the two African Presidents been properly investigated by the ICTR? Why is the world so ready to condemn the investigations and indictments by French Judge Bruguiere and Spanish Judge Andreu?

I think there are bigger fish to fry here, and unfortunately, one of the few people to challenge the media’s commercialization of the Rwandan tragedies and its simplification into a “good/evil”, “hero/villain” dichotomy is being taken to trial for “hate.” Shouldn’t SOS Racisme be challenging the portrayal of Africans as “uncivilized savages” who are “blood thirsty” and will “spontaneously embark on killing sprees” as has been applied to many ethnic groups in Africa and even in Rwanda itself? Seriously, Tutsis were part of the “bad guys” during the genocide, before, and after. There is nothing “hateful” about that, nor anything “prejudiced.” It’s a fact.

I mean this whole thing is like when people say Sarah Palin is inexperienced, and the GOP cries sexism. Seriously? Get out of here! It’s a joke!