Smart bombs
By Choma
Just as Wogesha has done, I, Choma, have also begun a professional medical career. I just came off my first shift in the Emergency Room. Even if you are not religious, pray for those patients I saw today. The rush to see, diagnose, treat and remove patients is counterproductive towards quality health care. Yet this superficial topic is not why I blog today.
What I do want to write about briefly is the irony of self-importance. Self-importance is the quality that allows assholes a reasonable chance of being seen in relatively flattering terms.
The slew of African-focused humanitarian efforts in 2007 are what have caught my attention. What’s up with the celebrity and philanthropic foci upon Africa ? Not that I mind the attention, but since when did Rock stars and Ex-Presidents care so much about those whom they never seemed to embrace previously. The image of Bono sitting on an island he owns talking to other rich people about how poor off Africans are is a bit absurd. Sir Bono is only outdone by former President Clinton and his humbly-named organization, the Clinton Foundation. Where else but Africa could a serially-unfaithful husband be so warmly received in his efforts to eradicate a disease spread by unfaithful husbands?
The irony of self-importance is that one’s efforts, however sincere their intention, fail to arise from sincere people.
Bono ... coz he needs a past time that more meaningful in nature than excessive drinking (U2's music has always been political in nature so it's not quite as if social action has come as a revelation to Bono).
Either way, why does it matter who's taking action? They could all happily be sipping beer by in their spare time in the Caribbean ... instead of fretting over Africa. What's the harm in that? Are you upset with how they propose to bring about change in Africa or that they even attempt to bring any form of change to Africa? (Comment this)
Since Tibet is passe, why not Africa and Africans (Comment this)
Whatever their intention is, their deed is what counts.
Does it really matter whether they are genuine or not? (Comment this)
Adey (Comment this)
choma (Comment this)
No one believes that rock pop or any other stars are the saviours of Africa or that they will "fix" the planet from global warning, what they do is bring awareness to people who listen to them as in their "fans".
These fans might not listen to who academics who tirelessly campaigned for years about climate change or Africa or politicians or activists of any kind, but they listen to what famous people say and sometimes they might even take some actions towards it ,why do you have a quarrel with that and the results it might bring regardless of how it came about?.
(Comment this)
Who's defending former DC mayor Marion Barry. Didn't he get reamed by the pres for months and comedians for years for speaking at anti-drug rallies on the same day he smoked crack with a DC prostitute during an FBI sting?
why the free pass? As an internal medicine resident, I am faced with the dilemma of advising scores of people with preventable chronic disease (diabetes, hypertension, emphysema, copd, arthritis . . .) who suffer from the same vices I cannot control in myself. The difference is I qualify what I say in these conversations. I openly admit I struggle with these same challenges. Furthermore, I don't actively seek to advise others on issues which I myself am not qualified to speak.
Clinton, Bono, Geldorf, and every other publicity seeker have the audacity to criticize the same lifestyle practices in which they indulge fully. If it were Gandi instead of Clinton espousing HIV prevention methods I would be behind them full support.
When you start rooting for marion barry's senatorial campaign, and for Pookie, the crack junkie from the Movie New Jack City, as President Bush's new Drug Tzar, then we'll agree on something. Till then, I'll go on 'With or Without You.'
CHOMA (Comment this)
(Comment this)
Apart from Clinton I dont even think the other two would be classified as publicity seekers or unfaithful husbands. With Clinton there is proof , with the others even if true and there are all kind of rumours about how pure Ghandi's life was you dont know for certain and cant state it as a fact.
And how do you know for certain that Gandhi was an all time faithful husbands who never was unfaithful to his wife? You think he might have but he might or not not been. And to group together Clinton, Bono and Geldof isnt fair to any of them and isnt particularly fair to Bob Geldof. Mr Geldof is a good campaigner and not known for hypocrisy either.
I dont think they preach, about morality , they might suggest that if one wants to be unfaithful to their wives or girlfriends or if one has the urge to mate it would be helpful to all concerned if they used protection. Is that wrong advice to give provided advice was what they gave.
(Comment this)