Is Hillary Clinton Robotic and Amoral ?

Hillary Clinton recently said something that’s morally and politically unfortunate. For a world-class politician like Clinton to utter something so robotic, so dispassionate, is very disconcerting; and pundits and average Americans should be concerned.

Many people in the world are more concerned about American presidency and elections than we realize. And this might come as a shock and questionable to many Americans because non-Americans can't vote in US elections.

However, America meddles in the affairs of many countries; and the decisions taken by American governments affect the citizens of these countries more than Americans realize. The cult of expertism has made Americans ignorant of world's socio-political and geopolitical affairs; and also, too dependent on 'Experts.'

Beside the fact that America is the only super-power (in a vague sense) and that any vile American economic decision sends shockwaves throughout all economies in the world, it's prudent that we, as non-Americans, question the moral standing of aspirants for American presidency.

About a month ago, Democratic Presidential hopeful, Hillary R. Clinton, was asked by a group of 'Black Lives Matter' about what she could do to help their cause. Beside the fact that her response was cold, dispassionate and dismissive, she proved what pundits and analysts say about her: that she's not relatable on a human level.  Clinton talks to voters like a human-like robot!

With a straight, robotic face, Mrs. Clinton told the activists she doesn't believe in changing hearts but in changing laws. She later on acknowledged the fact that you can change some hearts but not others. Of course, the latter is the core of human social reality. No matter how good something is, some people will oppose it!

What bothered me as a moralist and humanist was the moral dryness and dispassionate manner  Clinton talked to the activists. A leader who’d possibly make very intricate and life-changing decisions needs to have humane ways of looking at things.

For Clinton to say she doesn’t believe in changing hearts but in changing laws, she betrays the a-moral nature of the would-be president of the most powerful nation in the world. In the scariest sense of the word, Clinton is saying she’s not obligated to regard African-Americans in a humane, passionate manner unless the law says so. She’ll only respect them and treat them well because the law tells her to. This is terrible!

Good people-to-people inclusive attitude is the only way to create inclusive societies where discriminatory practices are not systemically pervasive. Civil Rights leaders (both African-Americans and European-Americans) didn’t wait for laws to be changed.  Conscientious European-Americans didn’t wait for laws (Civil Rights Act, 1964) to make them respect African-Americans. Anti-Slavery activists and Abolitionists didn't wait for laws outlawing Slavery. They saw the inhumanity of segregation and acted because they felt the human-ness of African-Americans. Without the action of these humane hearts, there would have been no inspiration to changes in discriminatory legislations.

To change hearts is to make people understand the rationale behind any social campaign. Once people see the point of such social demands and understand why they should be met, their change of hearts becomes long-lasting and impacting.

Once you depend on laws to make people respect each other, you’re basically making people bottle-up their feelings. You have to address people’s feelings (bad or good, informed or ill-informed) instead of forcing them.

No matter how good something is, people will naturally resist it if you force it on them.

Dr. Ben Carson, Political Myopia and Sociopolitical illiteracy

"I guess it depends on what the faith is. If it’s inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter."

        “No, I do not. I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.”

          Dr. Ben S. Carson.

Having seen the negative response to his vile, ignorant, bigoted and irresponsible comments, Dr. Carson tried to rationalize his comments by saying he only meant Muslims who follow ‘Sharia Law.’ It’s so sad that a highly respected Neurosurgeon didn’t find it fit to acquaint himself with Islam in order to separate bigots in Islam and the average, peaceful Muslim!

Dr. Carson, a man who prides himself in the value of education is embracing values (or vices I should say) that negate the essence of what he’s spent his life drumming onto young people’s ears: education.

A man whose ancestors and people (African-Americans) were treated like animals in America and denied the juice of the American niceties had forgotten the recent past. He’s now assumed the position of the oppressor, who decides who is to benefit from what and why! Instead of championing inclusiveness and criticize what affects the average American, the good Dr. Ben embraced the don’t-care-attitude of the American South that dreams of bringing back racial segregation, and even slavery.

But some people see Dr. Carson's comments about a Muslim not becoming president of United States through the prism of realist school of thought. This means he's appealing, in a pragmatic sense, to a selected, disillusional lot who dream of bringing back the past: "Bringing Our Country Back!"  Still, others see his responses as an honest visceral response regarding what he feels; that is, he doesn't want to be diplomatic (or lie like other politicians) by saying what's not in his heart.  And bizarrely though, there are those who are applauding Dr. Carson because his response appeals to their myopic, denigrating utopian puritanism of the American past. This past, which Dr. Carson would not want brought back, is what he's exploiting.

Yesterday it was 'Whites Only' for President but now, as Dr. Carson wants us to believe, it's "Christians Only for President."

It’s true to say that Islam is more prone to vengeful politicization and violence than any other religion NOW on earth; however, it’s ignorant to use small, mindless, literalists to generalize 5 million Americans. How many Muslims in America are suicide bombers? How many Muslims in America treat woman in a subservient manner?  How many Muslims in America embrace the literalist application of 'Sharia Law'? Is it wise for a respected doctor to equate all Muslim Americans with the likes of Al Qaeda, ISIS, Al Shabab?

There are American Muslims who are doctors and treat everyone with equality and respect! There are Muslim professors and teachers who teach children with equality and respect! And there are even Muslim Americans in the military and law enforcement who protect all Americans with pride and pure patriotism. It’s vile for the Dr. Ben to use non-Americans to judge all Muslim Americans!

Why can’t the good doctor use his campaign staff to get some quantitative, sociological studies to see how many Muslims fall into the doctor’s close-minded rationalization of issues? So being a republican candidate makes people hate facts and embrace the world of emotive irrationality! How can Dr. Carson look young Muslim Americans in the eye and tell them: “I’ll be your president and I’ll protect your right. But remember there are things I’d not allow you to enjoy!”

 

'Ambassador' Gordon Buay Malek: An Agent of Discord, an Unscrupulous Opportunist, and a Decomposition Bacterium to South Sudan's Diplomacy

 

A Decomposition Bacterium to South Sudan's Diplomacy

Any human person who functions without structured code of professional and civil conduct is not only a mad man, but also, a dangerous man! And it’s no secret that a one Gordon Buay Malek, who— by the Republican Decree on November 18, 2014 became an ‘ambassador’ (without portfolio) — operates with no professional code of conduct whatsoever. He says whatever he wants whenever he wants. He proudly told a Jieeng Radio program (SBS Dinka) based in Australia on August 31, 2014 that “I have been issuing press statements since last year and no one questions me!...Ateny was talking from a position of ignorance! …Now I’m the government!” (Buay’s SBS Interview).

It makes one wonder as to where in the world a pathological sides-switcher could get such powers and voice? How can a man belittle the president, who controls power in South Sudan in such a manner? He belittles not only the Presidential press secretary, calling him ignorant, but also the Minister of Foreign affairs, who’s supposed to be his boss. And he [Buay] gets away with it!

What any fair-minded, caring and patriotic South Sudanese would ask is: how did this happen? How can a man, many times a rebel, now a mere ambassador, act as if he’s the president of South Sudan, the information minister, the security chief, the military spokesperson, and the presidential spokesperson… and gets away with it? Has President Kiir been so much reduced to complete political incompetence that the likes of Buay mock him in such a manner?

Mr. Buay should, in a world of rules, code of conduct, and job description, only do and say what the foreign ministry tell him! Well, he’s mocking not only the foreign minister, Dr. Marial Benjamin, but also the president of the Republic of South Sudan!

In August 2014, he sent out a Press Release about an alleged arrest of Mabior Garang as wanting to assassinate President Kiir in Ethiopia. Under what capacity does Buay write on behalf of the government, the president, the national security of Ethiopia and South Sudan? Buay has put the government and President Kiir in his pocket. Complete mockery! He’d previously done the same thing by claiming that Vice President Wani Igga (then the speaker) was attacked in November of 2012 in Calgary, Alberta, by citizens of Northern Bahr El Ghazal because of Mile 14. Nothing of the sort happened!

South Sudan is a sovereign nation that should have a clear, well-articulated foreign policy that should guide all diplomatic missions representing the national interest in the best way possible. It appears Mr. Buay operates either out of disdain for that foreign policy, or there’s no foreign policy to follow and that each and every figure with ambassadorial position does whatever he or she wants. What a country!

Ambassadors are supposed to toe the line of what the national foreign ministry articulates. Mr. Buay operates his own foreign policy in total disregard to the integrity, professionalism and the national interest of South Sudan. His quotidian mannerism, interest and articulations are a total disrespect to the integrity with which ambassadors are supposed to operate.

If figures like Mr. Buay represent South Sudan in the heart of World political theatre like Washington DC, is any one surprised that the government ‘Coup attempt narrative’ wasn’t respected by anyone in the world? How can a nation be respected when ambassadors disrespect the president and are answerable to NO ONE; When they shamelessly lie every day and aren’t aware of their job descriptions. Are we this confused?

Unless the likes of Mr. Buay are shown their rightful mandates as diplomats, we will continue to be the JOKE of the world.

Ambassadors aren’t politicians and their job description should be clearly spelled to them. And neither are ambassadors army generals to meddle in military issues. Mr. Buay shouldn’t be allowed to say anything at all in relation to the government and the military. His role should be restricted to bilateral relations between South Sudan and the nation in which he’s posted as a diplomat.